Chenaji and Others vs Taluk Land Board and Others

M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—Petitioners 1 and 2 filed application u/s 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming right over 9 cents and 14 cents respectively. Petitioners 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the declarant Viswanathan Gurukkal. Viswanathan Gurukkal was directed to surrender 13 acres of land by the Taluk Land Board as per order dated 18th April 1984. One of the legal representatives of Viswanathan Gurukkal filed C.R.P. 1480 of 1984. This Court reduced the extent of land to be surrendered to 12 acres 75 cents. When Petitioners 1 and 2 filed applications u/s 85(8) legal representatives of Viswanathan Gurukkal filed application stating that there occurred various mistakes in calculating the extent of properties and granting of exemptions and so the matter requires reconsideration. The Taluk Land Board rejected the claim of Petitioners 1 and 2 u/s 85(8) and also the claim of Petitioners 3 to 6 to reopen the matter.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that when the Taluk Land Board considered the matter earlier there was no serious attempt to adduce proper evidence in the case, that there are kudiyiruppus and public roads which were omitted to be mentioned in the earlier proceedings and as there was no proper enquiry conducted by the Taluk Land Board by making actual physical verifications through authorised officer before the claims were rejected a rehearing of the matter is really warranted. Counsel contended that Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act can be invoked by the Petitioners to review the order of the Taluk Land Board. Government pleader submitted that Section 85(9A) cannot be invoked by a private party as the power is solely vested with the Taluk Land Board.

The cardinal question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Taluk Land Board which has become final in view of the decision in C.R.P. 1480 of 1984 can be reopened at the instance of Petitioners 3 to 6 by invoking Section 85(9A) of the Act. Section (9A) was introduced by Kerala Land Reform''s (Amendment) Act, 1989 (Act 16 of 1989). Under Sub-section (9A) the Taluk Land Board is empowered to review its decision if it is satisfied that the decision under Sub-section (5) or Sub-section (7) or Sub-section (9) requires to be reviewed on the following grounds:

(1) that such decision has been made due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession of properties before it;

(2) or if the order was passed as a result of collusion or fraud or by any suppression of material facts.

In the above circumstances the Taluk Land Board may review its decision, of course after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard in the matter. The proviso makes it clear that the Taluk Land Board shall not reopen any such case after the expiry of three years from the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, 1989.

Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners contended that Sub-section (9A) enables not only the Taluk Land Board but any party before the Taluk Land Board to seek review of its order as it is apparent from Sub-section (9A) that it can be invoked whenever there occurred failure of production of relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession of properties before the Taluk Land Board or if the order was passed as a result of collusion or fraud or due to any suppression of material facts. Counsel submitted that whenever there exists the aforesaid circumstances it is open to the declarant or any aggrieved person to invoke Sub-section (9A) as it would enable them to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to the ownership or possession of the land before the Taluk Land Board. The argument is that if a person is denied of such an opportunity Sub-section (9A) may become otiose as it may not be possible for the Taluk Land Board to find out any suppression of facts or collusion or fraud and therefore it is apparent that Sub-section (9A) can always be invoked by the declarant or any aggrieved person.

Sub-section (9A) being specific and unambiguous cannot be whittled down to hold that review power can be exercised by the declarant or any aggrieved person. Under Sub-section (9A) Land Board alone is given the power to review its decision under the circumstances enumerated. The proviso makes the position crystal clear as it specifies the period of limitation as three years from the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act for the Land Tribunal to act under the Sub-section. A reading of Sub-section (9A) and the proviso rules out the contention of the Petitioners that they also can seek review of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board.

The Taluk Land Board was perfectly justified in rejecting the claims u/s 85(8) filed by Petitioners 1 and 2. The Taluk Land Board was also justified in holding that it cannot review its earlier order which has been modified by this Court in C.R.P. 1480 of 1984 at the instance of Petitioners 3 to 6.

There is no merit in the civil revision petition and hence the same is dismissed.