P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.@mdashThis is the seventh round of litigation that is being pursued in respect of the same cause of action, by approaching this Court.
2. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the declarant, against whom proceedings were taken by the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna, for surrender of excess land. Pursuant to the order passed by the Taluk Land Board to surrender an extent of 33.56 acres of land which was found in excess of the ceiling limit, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.R.P. No. 3402 of 1976 wherein interference was made and appropriate directions were given [accepting the case put forward by the petitioner] to deduct the land given as gift to his major children under the partition deed bearing No. 2629 of 1972. Pursuant to this, the previous order was modified and the declarant was ordered to surrender 21.16= acres of land. This made the declarant to approach this Court again by filing C.R.P. No. 3339 of 1980 challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board and after haring, the matter was directed to be reconsidered. Pursuant to the same, consequential order was passed by the Taluk Land Board directing to surrender the land as fixed earlier. The legal heirs of the declarant challenged the said order by filing C.R.P. No. 865 of 1991. The said Revision Petition was allowed and the Taluk Land Board was directed to consider the claim made by the petitioners therein afresh. After considering the same, another order was passed by the Taluk Land Board, which again was challenged by filing C.R.P. No. 663 of 1996. The impugned order passed by the Tauk Land Board was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, directing the Taluk Land Board to take into consideration the extent of land stated as allotted to the major son as gift.
3. Pursuant to the above order, the Taluk Land Board called for a report from the authorised officer. In the course of the proceedings, a totally new case was mooted by the legal heirs of the declarant in respect of a daughter of the declarant, besides projecting the case referring to the alleged conveyance effected to other transferees by way of sale. All the above contentions were repelled by the Taluk Land Board, fixing an extent of 19.20 acres as the excess land to be surrendered in the ceiling case; which again was subjected to challenge by filing C.R.P. No. 468 of 2009. After considering the matter at length, interference was declined and the C.R.P. was dismissed by this Court as per Ext.P1 order dated 25.8.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a review petition as R.P. No. 925 of 2009, leading to Ext.P2 order holding that the case projected by the petitioners therein was a new one and that no interference was warranted.
4. In the meanwhile, some of the alleged transferees of various extents of land approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 30704 of 2009, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, whereby the applications preferred by the said transferees were directed to be considered. The grievance of the appellant herein is that, if the applications preferred by the transferees are allowed by the Taluk Land Board, the appellant/petitioner is likely to be mulcted with more liabilities and hence seeks for consideration of Ext.P6 re-option submitted in this regard, along with the applications preferred by the transferees, which are stated as still to be finalized
5. When the writ petition came up for consideration before this Court, a learned Judge of this Court, taking note of the sequence of events leading to Ext.P1 order, followed by Ext.P2 order passed in the review petition, declined interference and the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant challenges the correctness and sustainability of the said verdict in this writ appeal.
6. Going by the facts and figures borne out by the materials on record and the undisputed turn of events, particularly with regard to the filing of various Civil Revision Petitions culminating in the orders as above, this Court finds that no tenable ground has been raised in support of the claim made in the writ petition. The factual position has been appreciated by the learned single Judge correctly and it is well within the four walls of the law. As such, no interference is warranted in this appeal. The writ appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
