Judgment 1. State has filed the above revision challenging the order passed by Taluk Land Board, Mannarcaud in the ceiling proceedings of first respondent, a company, under section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short the Act. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the revision can be summed up thus:-First respondent filed statement of its land account under section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the State Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram. That statement was forwarded for verification and appropriate orders to the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad. Taluk Land Board by order dated 16.7.1981 dropped the ceiling case. State preferred a revision, CRP No.2012/1982, against the order of Taluk Land Board dropping the ceiling case. By order dated 22.6.1988 this court remitted the case to Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal. First respondent challenged that order filing an appeal with a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Leave was declined by apex court upholding the orders of this court directing re-determination of the ceiling area after further inquiry. Subsequent to such orders of remand, Taluk Land Board after conducting further verification disposed the ceiling case by Order dated 13.7.1995 holding that first respondent has to surrender 442.57 acres of land as excess area. Board has granted exemption to first respondent over vast extent of land without any justifiable ground, fixation of its excess area limiting to 442.57 acres is patently unsustainable and illegal, and further, it has not conducted any independent inquiry over claims raised by some third parties who produced purchase certificates issued by Land Tribunal or other deeds of title over portions of land covered by ceiling proceedings, is the case of State to contend that the order Board is unsustainable. 3. I heard learned Special Government pleader who appeared for the State and also respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The main crux of challenge pressed into service by learned special Government pleader, Smt. Suseela Bhat to assail the order of Taluk Land Board is that exemption over a vast extent of 2583.64 acres of land in the total area possessed by first respondent company was granted by the Board treating it as plantation, forest etc without any material produced to claim such exemption. Similarly 54 acres of land from the account of assessee was deleted holding that such properties are occupied by third parties/claimants, but, without any proper verification of the claims set up over such properties but simply relying on some purchase certificates obtained by claimants from the Land Tribunal, according to Special Government pleader. Specific directions given in the remand order have been given a go-by by the Taluk Land Board and it has dealt with case in a most perfunctory manner to exclude vast area in the land account of first respondent without any ground whatsoever for exempting such land is the submission of learned special Government pleader. Learned Special Government pleader referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bhavani Tea and produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others (1991) 2 SCC 463 ) in which the declarant was a party and lands covered by the present ceiling case were involved, but, with respect to questions relating to vesting of private forests under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, to contend that the entire estate of the declarant company cannot be taken as a whole to grant exemption as plantation, forest etc. Without consideration as to particulars, survey number, documents of title relevant material showing the nature of land as plantation or forest and also whether there was conversion or variation as plantation or forest, and, if so at what point of time. The Board has granted, without applying its mind on the aforesaid aspects, exemption to large extent of lands as plantation, forest etc from the land account of declarant, and it is per se unsustainable submits the learned Special Government pleader. Reliance is also placed on State of Kerala and another v. Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 92 ) by learned special Government pleader to contend that it is for the declarant to establish by convincing evidence when its claims exemption towards plantation, forest etc, with reference to the notified date, to seek such exemption under section 81 of the Act. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 92 ) by learned special Government pleader to contend that it is for the declarant to establish by convincing evidence when its claims exemption towards plantation, forest etc, with reference to the notified date, to seek such exemption under section 81 of the Act. There was no consideration or determination by Board on the claims raised by the declarant over large extent of land as plantation, forest etc and, without application of mind, preparing and publishing a draft statement exempting large extent of land as plantation, forest, and that too flouting the specific directions given by this court and also the Apex Court, the proceedings were conducted, is the further submission of learned Special Government pleader. The order passed by Taluk Land Board in the above circumstances cannot be sustained, and, it is liable to be set aside, is the submission of leaned Special Government pleader. 5. Learned senior counsel Sri. K. Ramkumar appearing for first respondent raised twofold challenges to assail the revision as not entertainable. No ground has been raised in the memorandum of revision to impeach the Order of Board for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, according to learned counsel. Only in a case where the Board has decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law a revision against its Order can be entertained under section 103 of the Act, and no such case has been made out by this State, is the submission of counsel relying on Kerala Ayurveda Vydyasala Ltd v. Kallanai ( 1999 (3)SCC 238 ). State could have moved for review under section 85 (9A) of the Act if for any reason the order passed by Board suffered from any infirmity, but, that was not done, is the next challenge canvassed by learned counsel to contend that present revision is not entertainable. 6. Learned counsel Sri. M.C. John appearing for 157th respondent supported the order of Board to the extent 300 acres out of 310 acres claimed by that respondent under a registered lease deed was ordered to be deleted from the land account of declarant in ceiling proceedings. The Board was not justified in not ordering deletion of the entire extent i.e.310 acres claimed by this respondent for the reason that registered lease deed showed only an extent of 300 acres, is the submission of counsel. The Board was not justified in not ordering deletion of the entire extent i.e.310 acres claimed by this respondent for the reason that registered lease deed showed only an extent of 300 acres, is the submission of counsel. Learned counsel also brought to my notice that the above respondent had filed a revision against the Order now impugned and that revision was disposed by Order dated 27.2.2003 by this court directing the Board to consider afresh whether the above respondent is entitled to have deletion of 10 acres more as claimed by him. Allowing that revision the case was remitted, but, limiting the enquiry only over the claim of the above respondent, submits the counsel. 7. Learned counsel Sri. V.V. Joshy who appeared for some of the respondents viz R3, R7, R8, R14, R16, R30, R40, R41, R44, R45, R63, R65, R66, R68, R75, R80, R89, R94, R95, R97, R100, R101, R104, R110, R118, R123, R126, R127, R130, R132, R136, R143, R151 and R155, whose claims over pieces of land covered in the ceiling proceedings producing purchase certificates issued by land Tribunal or other documents have not been allowed, contended that the Board has gone wrong in not accepting their claims and deleting the lands claimed by them from the land account of declarant. These respondents are small holders and they are `deemed tenants’ under section 7E of the Act, is the submission of counsel referring to the aforesaid Section with Section 106B of the Act. Order of the Taluk Land Board negativing their claims has to be reversed and portions of lands claimed by them are to be exempted from the land account of declarant, contends the counsel. 8. This court in its order passed in the previous revision against the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board dropping the ceiling proceedings of the declrant company, has expressed its anguish and serious concern over the manner the Board dealt with and passed orders in ceiling proceedings, especially, where such proceedings are against declarants in possession of large extent of lands. The light heartedness and casualness with which the Board dealt with the matter was commented upon by this court while setting aside its order thus:- “No consideration about the various matters such as the area actually covered by the licences issued from time to time with particular reference to the details of the licence, and no indication of the extent of variation and no assessment of the explanation for variation had been attempted by the Lands Board.” The Government under that order was directed to conduct an enquiry through the Vigilance Department since this court felt that the circumstances and materials available in the files produced prima facie called for a meaningful and serious probe into the matter. While disposing the revision this court has taken note of the perfunctory manner in which the proceedings were conducted and orders were passed by the Taluk Land Board to drop the ceiling proceedings against the declarant. Observations made by this court in paragraph 6 of the order with respect to the report filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar and how it was considered by the Board in passing the previous order read thus:- “Taluk Land Board committed a serious dereliction of its duty, in not taking to elementary care to have materials and documents made mention in the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar when it had been dealing with such extensive area and such extensive area and such diverse claims. The manner in which Special Deputy Tahsildar submitted the report and the Taluk Land Board passed its order, would clearly establish a total non-availability of relevant material and a non application of mind on the part of the Land Board.” The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 14292/1988) filed by declarant to challenge the above order in appeal, by order dated 23.2.1990. The Apex Court approving the observation and finding made by this court has expressed thus in the order. “The High Court was of the opinion that the Taluk Land Board had not applied its mind to relevant materials necessary for coming to the conclusion regarding the extent of surplus land liable to be surrendered by the petitioner. The Apex Court approving the observation and finding made by this court has expressed thus in the order. “The High Court was of the opinion that the Taluk Land Board had not applied its mind to relevant materials necessary for coming to the conclusion regarding the extent of surplus land liable to be surrendered by the petitioner. We think that, basically, this criticism is right.” In the ceiling proceedings it is necessary for the Board to apply its mind with respect to the provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and decide the issue whether any of the lands involved or other `dry lands’ brought under cultivation after 1.4.1964 (vide section 82 of the Act).The Apex Court has expressed thus in its order:- “It was necessary, as the High Court has rightly pointed out, for the Taluk Land Board to apply its mind to the classification of land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and decide the issue after careful consideration of each survey number. To this extent, therefore, the order of the High Court is correct and it has to be upheld.” Dismissing the Special Leave Petition the apex court directed that Taluk Land Board should redetermine the surplus lands in the hands of declarant after due consideration of the provisions of the Act and the nature of several pieces of land, untrammelled and uninfluenced by the general observations made by this court in the functioning of the statutory authorities. 9. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government pleader the direction given by this court in the previous revision, and affirmed by Apex court dismissing the special leave petition preferred by the declarant, which mandated Taluk Land Board to examine, consider and determine the surplus land in possession of the declarant with reference to ,the provisions of the Act and more particularly after having an enquiry whether any of the lands were either “dry lands brought under cultivation after 1.4.1964” with reference to each survey number has been given scant respect by the Board when it passed the order impugned in the revision. After remission it is seen the Board collected a fresh report from the authorised officer, who was assisted by a Surveyor in identifying the lands. After receiving report of the authorised officer individual notices were issued to the parties including those who have set up claims over pieces of land covered by the ceiling proceedings. After remission it is seen the Board collected a fresh report from the authorised officer, who was assisted by a Surveyor in identifying the lands. After receiving report of the authorised officer individual notices were issued to the parties including those who have set up claims over pieces of land covered by the ceiling proceedings. The order passed by the Board would show that after enquiry claims raised by some third parties were accepted, rejecting the rest, and a conclution was formed that 365.80 acres in the land account of declarant has to be deleted towards the accepted claims of third parties. 10. In the introductory part of the order impugned, it is stated, the Board met on 22.4.1993 after receipt of the authorised officer’s report and then perusing the records of enquiry and discussing the matter it decided to issue a revised draft statement. Individual notices were thereupon issued to the parties with the revised draft statement. When rervised draft statement was issued 2583.64 acres was excluded from land account of declarant as plantation, forests etc, and, standard limit provided, calling upon it to surrender 874.37 acres as excess land. Exemption of 2570.64 acres of land as forest, Plantation etc under section 81 of Act, on the basis of report of authorised officer was provided in the draft statement. On the excess area fixed as 874.37 acres claims of third parties, some among the respondents herein, having been upheld in the enquiry to the extent claims were accepted lands in their possession were deleted. Strangely when a draft statement was prepared by Board on authorised officer’s report, evidently no enquiry was conducted not even any attempt made with respect to the directions given by this court and also the Apex Court whether any dry land had been converted after 1.4.1964 as forest or plantation with reference to title documents produced by declarant or such other relevant materials to exclude vast extent of land towards plantation, forest etc. In fact the Board has not considered such issues despite specific directions given by this court and also the Apex court. In fact the Board has not considered such issues despite specific directions given by this court and also the Apex court. Learned Special Government pleader is fully justified in contending that the Board has conducted the proceedings in a most perfunctory manner and it has not cared to adhere to the direction issued how the enquiry over the proceedings is to be conducted in fixing the excess area of the declarant in the proceedings. There was no application of mind by Board with reference to the directions by this court and the Apex court when it considered the authorised officer’s report after remission of the case in preparing the revised draft statement. The Board was duty bound to obey in letter and spirit the directions issued, and it cannot base its conclusion on authorised officer’s report where he has not gone into any of the matters directed to be examined in fixing the excess area to be surrendered giving an opinion that certain lands are to be excluded as plantations, forests etc. What could have been exempted is only such land covered by the documents and that too where it has been shown to be plantation, forests before 1.4.1964 and not otherwise. As and when the authorised officer conducted the inspection the land was a forest, plantation cannot be a creteria in determining the area to be exempted as plantation, forest, especially in the light of the specific direction given by this court and the Apex Court. When that be so , the order passed by the Taluk Land Board cannot be sustained. A reconsideration of the whole issue afresh by Board to determine the excess area to be surrendered by the declarant after conducting an enquiry complying with the directions issued by this court and Apex court has to be carried out. 11. However with respect to the claim of the 157th respondent over 300 acres of land on the basis of the registered lease in his favour the order passed by the Board upholding the claim and affirmed by this court in a revision separately filed by that respondent is not liable to be reopened. His claim that 10 acres more as part of the lease hold has to be exempted as directed in the order passed in the above revision has to be considered afresh on remission of the case. 12. His claim that 10 acres more as part of the lease hold has to be exempted as directed in the order passed in the above revision has to be considered afresh on remission of the case. 12. So far as the claims of other respondents which are seen allowed without having any physical verification and also by reasoned order adjudicating the merits of such claims cannot be sustained. Solely after perusing some registered deeds most of which came after 1.1.1970 or purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal, it is seen, the Board has upheld the claims or some third parties. Validity of the transactions covered by the deeds nor genuineness or acceptability of purchase certificate with any enquiry conducted through revenue authorities has not been done by Board while it accepted such claims. The order passed by the Board accepting such claims of third parties in the land included in the account of declarant covered by the ceiling proceedings cannot be accepted. The claim so upheld in favour of third parties has to be examined afresh in accordance with law to be pass appropriate orders thereof. So far as the third parties whose claims have been rejected, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel appearing for such third parties, among whom the claims of R16 and R44 are seen accepted and upheld by Board regarding their status as deemed tenants under section 7A of the Act. In case they have status of deemed tenants that is a matter to be adjudicated and decided before the Land Tribunal. The Board has no statutory authority to confer on such claimants or even to treat them as `deemed tenants’ when that falls for determination before a different authority-tribunal. 13. In the memorandum of revision no ground has been made out to impeach the order of the Board in revision under section 103 of the Act and that revisional powers of this court can be exercised only within the limits covered by that section i.e. only when the Board has decided any question of law, erroneously or failed to decide any question of law, the challenge raised by the learned counsel for first respondent to challenge the revision as not entertainable, has no basis or merit. The Board has not complied with the specific directions in the orders passed by this court in previous revision, which was affirmed by Apex court as well, renders its decision unsustainable. Further more the power of revision conferred on this court under section 103 of the Act is not limited only to question of law or jurisdiction but it is wide enough to be invoked in appropriate cases where it is shown failure to do so would result in manifestation of injustice. The Apex Court in Mammu v. Hari Mohan ( 2000(1) KLT 835 ) dilating on the revisional powers of this court has held that the power of revision vested in the High Court is wide and not limited to question of law or jurisdiction and it can be invoked in appropriate cases where such inference is necessary in the “interest of justice and proper adjudication of the dispute raised by the parties.” There is also no merit in the challenge raised by the counsel for the first respondent that State could have invoked the power of review of the Board under section 85 (9A) of the Act. Power conferred under section 85(9A) of the Act operates in a different realm and in fact that rule was inserted by amendment under Act 69 of 1989 fixing a time limit of 3 years from the date of coming into force of that amendment Act. That rule conferred power of review to the Board as indicated fixing a time limit for invoking it has no significance or relevance over the right of State to prefer a revision to challenge the order of the Board. I find no further dilation on the challenge canvassed under section 85(9A) is called for. In the result setting aside the order impugned in the revision Taluk Land Board is directed to take note of the observations made above and pass orders afresh complying in letter and spirit the direction issued by this court in the previous order which was approved and affirmed by the Apex Court, in conducting the enquiry and determining the excess area to be surrendered by the declarant. On remission of the case the claim of 157th respondent over 10 acres of land in addition to its claim upheld over 300 acres of land and also those of third parties- claimants –whose claims have been accepted by the Board, but, without proper enquiry, shall also be considered, adjudicated and decided upon in determining the excess area to be surrendered by declarant in the ceiling proceedings. The Board shall expedite the proceedings which has been continuing so long to pass final orders at the earliest.