Judgment :- 1. The maintainability of this revision petition is challenged by Mr. V. Subramoniam Moothath, counsel for the respondent. The revision petitioner is the State. The order sought to be revised is one passed by the Taluk Land Board, Kanjirappalli. By that order certain lands were exempted in calculating the excess land, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, in the possession of the respondent. 2. The material portions of S.103 of the Act under which this revision petition has been filed, read: "Revision by High Court:-(1) Any person aggrieved by (i) …… (ii) …. (iii) any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act, may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law. (1A) In any petition for revision preferred under sub-section (1), the Government shall be made a party. Revision petition under that provision can be filed only by an aggrieved person. 3. The question then is whether the State is a person. 'Person' is defined in S.2(43) of the Act, It reads: "person" shall include a company, family, joint family, association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding properties;" According to Mr. V. N. Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned Government Pleader, "State" comes in the category of "Institutions capable of holding property". But is State an institution? The word "institution" is not defined in the Act. 4. In "Words and Phrases Legally Defined" by John B. Saunders, Second Edition, in dealing with the word 'Institution' it is stated as follows: "It is a little difficult to define the meaning of the term 'institution' in the modern acceptation of the word. It means, I suppose, an undertaking formed to promote some defined purpose having in view generally the instruction or education of the public. It is the body (so to speak) called into existence to translate the purpose as conceived in the minds of the founders into a living and active principle... A public library may,1 think, be properly called an'institution' in that sense." Manchester Corpn. v. Mc Adam, (1896) A. C. 500, per Lord Macnaghten, at pp. 511, 512. It is the body (so to speak) called into existence to translate the purpose as conceived in the minds of the founders into a living and active principle... A public library may,1 think, be properly called an'institution' in that sense." Manchester Corpn. v. Mc Adam, (1896) A. C. 500, per Lord Macnaghten, at pp. 511, 512. Canada [Section 4(e) of the Income War Tax Act (Canada) 1927 exempted from taxation the income of (inter alia) any charitable 'institution'] "It is by no means easy to give a definition of the word 'institution' that will cover every use of it. Its meaning must always depend upon the context in which it is found. It seems plain, for instance, from the context in which it is found in the sub-section in question that the word is intended to connote something more than a mere trust" 5. Several meanings are given for the word "institution" in Dictionaries. Of them the meaning appropriate for the occasion appears to be: "An establishment, organization, or association, instituted for the promotion of some object, esp. one of public utility, religious, charitable, educational, etc." as given in Shorter Oxford Dictionary and "An organized society, established either by law or the authority of individuals, for promoting any object, public or social." as given in Black's Law Dictionary. 6. As to what is meant by 'State' is mentioned by John B. Saunders in his book "Words and Phrases Legally Defined" as follows: "State" means a territory or group of territories having its own law of nationality (Wills Act 1963, S.6). [Section 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 provides that a person who, for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the "state", enters, etc., any prohibited place, shall be guilty of felony.] "State" is not an easy word. It does not mean the Government or the executive. 'L'etat, lest moi' was a shrewd remark, but can hardly have been intended as a definition even in the France of the time. And I do not think that it means, as counsel argued, the individuals who inhabit these islands. The statute cannot be referring to the interests of all those individuals because they may differ and the interests of the majority are not necessarily the same as the interests of the state. And I do not think that it means, as counsel argued, the individuals who inhabit these islands. The statute cannot be referring to the interests of all those individuals because they may differ and the interests of the majority are not necessarily the same as the interests of the state. Again we have seen only too clearly in some other countries what can happen if you personify and almost deify the state. Perhaps the country or the realm are as good synonyms as one can find and I would be prepared to accept the organised community as coming as near to a definition as one can get." Chandler v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1962] 3 All ER. 142, HL., per Lord Reid, at p. 146. ' What is meant by 'the state?' Is it the same thing as what I have just called 'the country'? Counsel for the appellants submits that it means the inhabitants of a particular geographical area. I doubt if it ever has as wide a meaning as that. I agree that in an appropriate context the safety and interests of the state might mean simply the public or national safety and interests. But the more precise use of the word "state", the use to be expected in a legal context ...is to denote the organs of government of a national community. In the United Kingdom, in relation at any rate to the armed forces and to the defence of the realm that organ is the Crown" Ibid., per Lord Devlin, at p.156". As State is a territory or a geographical area I do not think it correct to call it an institution. 7. S.3(2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act, X of 1955, authorises Government to pass orders requiring any person holding in stock essential commodity to sell it to such person or class of persons as may be specified in the order. West Bengal Government ordered a person to sell out his stock of rice to the Director of Food and the Director informed the seller that the purchase was by the Government of West Bengal. The seller challenged the validity of the order and in considering that the question arose whether the State and Government were persons, contemplated by S. (2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act, to whom stock of essential commodity could be ordered to be sold. The seller challenged the validity of the order and in considering that the question arose whether the State and Government were persons, contemplated by S. (2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act, to whom stock of essential commodity could be ordered to be sold. The learned judge of the Calcutta High Court who dealt with that matter in Ramricipal Agarwalla and others v. The State of West Bengal AIR. 1958 Calcutta E57 held that State was not a person and in that connection observed: "A 'person'has been defined by S.3(42) of the General Clauses Act to include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, but this definition is not very helpful. In Motilal v. Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1951 All. 257 at p. 272 [FB] the word "person" in Art.14 of the Constitution was held not to include the State when carrying on its ordinary Governmental functions " After that the following passage from Shiv Parshad v. Punjab State AIR. 1957 Punjab 150 was quoted there with approval: "The natural and obvious meaning of the expression "person" is a living human being, a man, woman or child, and individual of the human race. As used in law the word includes natural persons and artificial persons like Corporations and Joint Stock Companies, but it does not include a State or Government, for although a State is in the language of Vattel 'a moral person having an understanding and a will, capable of possessing and acquiring rights and of directing and fulfilling obligations the State in its political organisation is entirely different and distinct from the inhabitants who may happen to reside there. Similarly a Government cannot fall within the ambit of the expression 'person' for although in common parlance 'Government is synonymous with 'State' in actual fact the State is a country or assemblage of people while the Government is the political agency through which it acts. It is true that the State is capable of suing or being sued but that is so not because the State is a person, but because Art.300 of the Constitution has made an express provision in that behalf." 8. The word "person" as used in the Kerala Land Reforms Act appears to exclude the State and Government because whenever they are intended they are specifically mentioned. The word "person" as used in the Kerala Land Reforms Act appears to exclude the State and Government because whenever they are intended they are specifically mentioned. Further in some portions of the Act the word 'State' is used in addition to the word 'person' indicating that 'State' is not included in the expression "person". S.102 of the Act which provides for appeals reads: "Appeal to appellate authority: (1) The Government or any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal may appeal against such order within such time as may be prescribed to the appellate authority" That indicates that Government is not a person as contemplated by the Act. The provision in S.103 (1A) of the Act that: "In any petition for revision preferred under sub-s. (1), the Government shall be made a party." indicates that if there was not that provision Government need not be a party at all in revision. I am therefore of opinion that neither the 'State' nor the 'Government' is a "person" as contemplated by S.103 (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 9. Assuming that State is a'person' even then can the State be regarded as aggrieved by an order of the Taluk Land Board determining the excess land to be surrendered by a person? Under S.86 of the Act excess land is to vest in the Government and under S.88 compensation has to be paid to the person who surrenders excess land. S.96 of the Act empowers the Land Board to assign on registry, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the lands vested in the Government and S.98 empowers the Land Board to manage the lands vested in the Government until their assignment. Persons to whom the lands are assigned under S.96 are to pay under S.97 the purchase price. That purchase price is the same as the compensation paid to the person who surrendered the land. These provisions show that the surrender to be made of excess land is to the Land Board, that it is the Land Board that assigns the land, that the land becomes vested in the Government only for the purpose of assignment to others and that Government does not even manage the land at any time. So Government cannot be an aggrieved party so far as final orders passed by the Taluk Land Board are concerned. So Government cannot be an aggrieved party so far as final orders passed by the Taluk Land Board are concerned. Holding that this revision petition is incompetent I dismiss it. There is no order as to costs. Send the records to the concerned Taluk Land Board before September 4,1976. Dismissed.