Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1979 DIGILAW 38 (KER)

KRISHNAN v. TALUK LAND BOARD, VAIKOM

1979-02-02

K.K.NARENDRAN

body1979
Judgment :- 1. Two points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision by the applicant in an application under S.85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, for short the Act, filed in Ceiling Case No. TLB. 21/73/VK.M of the Taluk Land Board, Vaikom. They are: (1) What are the conditions to be satisfied by the applicant under S.85 (8) of the Act for setting aside an order passed by the Taluk Land Board in a ceiling case and should the Taluk Land Board decide on the merits whether the applicant is interested in the land to be surrendered before ordering the application, and (2) Where the order of the Taluk Land Board was modified by the High Court in revision and the direction to surrender the land in which the applicant has interest was actually made by the High Court, can the Taluk Land Board set aside the order under S.85 (8) of the Act. 2. The 4th respondent in the Civil Revision is the person who filed the declaration in TLB. 21/73/VKM before the Taluk Land Board, Vaikom. The Taluk Land Board by its final order directed to surrender 2.50.497 acres as excess lands. Though 1.18 acres in Sy. No. 305/1 of Neezhoor Village over which the petitioner claims tenancy was also included in the lands covered by the declaration, it was not among the lands directed to be surrendered by the Taluk Land Board by its final order. The above order of the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the 4th respondent in C.R.P. No. 479 of 1976 before this Court. The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by this Court on 12-10-1976. The order of the Taluk Land Board was, to some extent, modified and changes were effected in the items of lands to be surrendered by the 4th respondent. 1.18.00 acres in Sy. No. 305/1 Nezhoor Village which the petitioner claims to be in his possession as tenant happened to be included in the lands to be surrendered by the 4th respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the Civil Revision Petition. Notice on the draft statement was also not issued to the petitioner by the Taluk Land Board. When the petitioner came to know of the direction to surrender he moved the Taluk Land Board on 7-12-1976 under S.85 (8) of the Act for setting aside the order. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the Civil Revision Petition. Notice on the draft statement was also not issued to the petitioner by the Taluk Land Board. When the petitioner came to know of the direction to surrender he moved the Taluk Land Board on 7-12-1976 under S.85 (8) of the Act for setting aside the order. The Taluk Land Board by its order dated 25-1-1977 dismissed the petitioner's application. According to the Taluk Land Board, the Petitioner's application was time barred. It was also held that the Taluk Land Board cannot review the order of the High Court which directed the surrender of the land over which the petitioner claims tenancy. According to the Taluk Land Board, the petitioner obtained the purchase certificate in respect of the land in collusion with the 4th respondent. The above order of the Taluk Land Board is questioned by the petitioner in this Civil Revision. 3. There is some substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. S.85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, reads: "85(8). Where the Taluk Land Board determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by any person without hearing any person interested, such person may, within sixty days from the date of such determination, apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order and, if he satisfies the Taluk Land Board that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the Taluk Land Board it shall set aside the order and shall proceed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) as the case may be." Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner on the draft statement by the Taluk Land Board. But the land in respect of which the petitioner has obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal was not included in the lands directed to be surrendered by the final order of the Taluk Land Board. It was by the modification that this Court made by the order in C.R.P. No. 479 of 1976 that the land in which the petitioner claims interest happened to be included in the lands directed to be surrendered by the 4th respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner was not heard as he was not a party in the above Civil Revision Petition. It was by the modification that this Court made by the order in C.R.P. No. 479 of 1976 that the land in which the petitioner claims interest happened to be included in the lands directed to be surrendered by the 4th respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner was not heard as he was not a party in the above Civil Revision Petition. So, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the case in which the direction to surrender was made. The other condition the petitioner should satisfy is that he is interested in the land directed to be surrendered. The petitioner has got a purchase certificate in respect of the land issued by a Land Tribunal. This is more than sufficient to show that the petitioner is interested in the land for the purposes of allowing the application under S.85(8) It is really a claim of an interest in the land that is required under the section for allowing the application and setting aside the order. Whether the interest that the petitioner claims is legally valid and whether the petitioner can really; save the land from surrender are all matters which the Taluk Land Board need consider only in passing the fresh order under S.85(5) or 85(7) as envisaged in S.85(8) of the Act. The petitioner need only file the application within sixty days of the knowledge of the order sought to be set aside. As already stated, the petitioner's grievance is against the order of the Taluk Land Board as modified by this Court in C.R.P. No. 479 of 1976. As the petitioner has approached the Taluk Land Board within sixty days of the order in the Civil Revision Petition the application is not barred by limitation. Then the only question that remains is whether the Taluk Land Board can set aside an order modified by the High Court. Under S.85(8) the person interested in the land directed to be surrendered can file the application to set aside the order. The application is to be filed before the Taluk Land Board. It cannot be filed before the High Court. Admittedly, the direction to surrender was made by the High Court without hearing the petitioner. The power to pass final orders in a ceiling case directing surrender of excess lands is with the Taluk Land Board under S 85 of the Act. It cannot be filed before the High Court. Admittedly, the direction to surrender was made by the High Court without hearing the petitioner. The power to pass final orders in a ceiling case directing surrender of excess lands is with the Taluk Land Board under S 85 of the Act. No doubt, the High Court has the power to interfere with that order in revision under S.103. But, even if it is interfered in revision, the order will not cease to be a final order in a ceiling case. If there is a direction to surrender land in that order an application under S.85 (8) will lie to the Taluk Land Board if the conditions insisted by the sub-section are satisfied. So, it is the Taluk Land Board that is to be approached even when its order is modified by the High Court in revision. 4. In the result, the order impugned is set aside and the Taluk Land Board, Vaikom is directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh in the light of what is said in this order and pass orders. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Allowed.