K.C. Mohammed Meeran vs Land Board

Sujatha V. Manohar, C.J.—The appellant is the Original Petitioner. The Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram, by its order dated 7-7-1973 in Ceiling Case No. LB (B) 3-8483/70, found that the family of appellant was liable to surrender land in excess of ceiling area to the extent of 18.86 acres. This order was under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The matter was taken up in revision before this Court in C. R. P. No. 913 of 1973. By order dated 12-3-1974 this Court modified the order reducing the extent of excess land to 14.86 acres. Thereafter the Government took possession of the said excess land. The Land Board also took proceedings to transfer the land to the revenue department for assignment. The matter was finalized as far back as in 1974. On 7-3-1990, the office of the Land Board has issued a notice to reopen the case by exercising the powers u/s 85 (9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is this notice which is challenged by the appellant in the Original Petition.

In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it is necessary to examine broadly some of the salient features of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in this connection. ''Land Board'' is defined u/s 2 (31) of the said Act as the ''Land Board'' constituted u/s 100. u/s 100 the Government is required to constitute a Land Board for the whole State for performing the functions of the Land Board under the said Act. The. Section provides that the Land Board shall consist of a sole member, who shall be a member of the Board of Revenue or an Officer not below the rank of Secretary to Government appointed by the Government, or it may consist of three members. Where the Land Board consists of three members, the members shall be (1) a member of the Board of Revenue or an Officer not below the rank of Secretary to Government, appointed by the Government, who shall be the Chairman; (2) a judicial officer not below the rank of a District Judge nominated by the Government in consultation with the High Court; and, (3) an officer of the Government nominated by the Government. It is necessary to note at this stage that in fact at the material time, the Land Board consisted only of a sole member.

By an Amending Act, being Act 17/72, Section 100A was, inter alia, introduced in the said Act constituting the Taluk Land Boards. Correspondingly Section 2(56A) was introduced defining ''Taluk Land Board'' as a Taluk Land Board constituted u/s 100A. u/s 100A, the Government shall, by notification in the gazette, constitute a Taluk Land Board for each taluk in the State. The Taluk Land Board shall consist of (1) an officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector appointed by the Government, who shall be the Chairman of the Board; and, (2) not more than six members nominated by the Government. There are other provisions of Section 100A, with which we are not concerned at present. There is, therefore, a clear distinction in the Act between the Land Board and the Taluk Land Board.

u/s 100C of the said Act, which was also introduced by Act 17/72, powers of the Taluk Land Board are specified. It provides that for the purpose of performing its functions under the said Act, the Taluk Land Board shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the CPC in respect of the matters specified therein. Section 100D provides for constitution of Land Reforms Review Board, with which we are not concerned. Section 101 deals with the power of the Land Board. The Section provides, inter alia, that the Land Board shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the CPC in respect of the matters specified therein. Subsection (2) of Section 101 provides that the Land Board shall have superintendence over all the Land Tribunals, appellate authorities and the Taluk Land Boards, and the Land Board may, inter alia, call for returns from the Taluk Land Boards, make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of the Taluk Land Boards. It also has the power to transfer any proceedings pending before any Taluk Land Board to any other Taluk Land Board or re-transfer the same.

Section 103 provides that any person aggrieved by any final order passed by the Land Board under the said Act or any final order of the Taluk Land Board under the said Act may prefer a revision before the High ''Court within such time as may be prescribed.

Section 85 of the said Act deals with surrender of excess lands under the said Act. Under sub-section (2) of Section 85, where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area, such person shall within the period prescribed therein file a Statement before the Land Board in the manner set out in that subsection, indicating, the lands proposed to be surrendered. Sub-section (2A) specifies the persons who are required to file such a statement. Sub-section (5) provides that on receipt of the statement under sub-section (2), the land Board shall transfer the statement to such Taluk Land Board as may be decided by the Land Board as set out therein. The Taluk Land Board shall cause the particulars mentioned in the statement to be verified, ascertain whether the person to whom the statement relates, owns or holds any other lands; and by order determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. Sub-section (7) provides that where any person fails to file the statement, the Land Board, shall intimate that fact to the Taluk Land Board and thereupon the Taluk Land Board shall, after necessary enquiries, by order determine the extent and other particulars of the land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered. This is to be done in the manner set out in that sub-section.

Sub-section (9) of Section 85 jives the Taluk Land Board the power to set aside its order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) and proceed afresh under that sub-section, if it is satisfied that the extent of the lands surrendered by a person is less than the extent of lands which he is liable to surrender and in certain other circumstances which are set out in that sub-section. The second proviso to sub-section (9) says that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of three years from the date on which the order sought to be set aside has become final. Explanation I to Section 85 (9) provides as follows:

Explanation I.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the references in this sub-section to the Taluk Land Board shall, in cases in which the order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) has been passed by the Land Board, be construed as references to the Land Board.

Explanation I therefore clearly refers only to sub-section (9) which deals with the power of the Taluk Land Board to set aside its order under Sub-section (5) or sub-section (7). Explanation I provides that in a case where the order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) is passed not by the Taluk Land Board, but by the Land Board, the reference to the Taluk Land Board in sub-section (9) shall be construed as a reference to the Land Board. In other words, where the Land Board has passed an order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), the Land Board has the power to set aside its order under sub-section (9), provided, of course, that the proceedings are initiated under sub-section (9) by the Land Board within the period of three years.

By Act 16/89, a further amendment was made to the K. L. R. Act, interalia, by introducing sub-section (9A) to Section 85. Section 85 (9A) provides as follows:

(9A) Power of Taluk Land Board to review its decision.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963), or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the Taluk Land Board may, if it is satisfied that its decision under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) or sub-section (9) requires to be reviewed on the ground that such decision has been made due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession before it, or by collusion or fraud or any suppression of material facts the Taluk Land Board may review such decision after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and pass such orders as it may think fit:

Provided 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 Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1989.

This sub-section gives power to the Taluk Land Board to review its own decision either under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) or sub-section (9), if such a decision has been made due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession before it, or by collusion or fraud or any suppression of material facts. Sub-section (9A) gives powers to the Taluk Land Board to reopen such a case upto the period of three years from the date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1989, that is to say Act 16/89. This Act came into force on 30-5-1989. For a period of three years thereafter, the Taluk Land Board can reopen a case in the circumstances set out there in. This power is given only to the Taluk Land Board in respect of a decision of the Taluk Land Board. It is not available to the Land Board.

It was contended by learned Government Pleader that in sub-section (9A) the reference to the Taluk Land Board should be treated as a reference to the Land Board also. It was submitted that the power to reopen a case given under sub-section (9A) is also available to the Land Board. Learned Government Pleader pressed into service Explanation I to sub-section (9) for this purpose. We fail to see how Explanation I to sub-section (9) can be read into sub-section (9A), Explanation 1 to sub-section (9) in terms refers only to sub-section (9). It provides that in sub-section (9) the reference to the Taluk Land Board shall be construed as a reference to the Land Board also, in certain specific cases, namely, where the order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) has been passed by the Land Board. Only in this specific situation, the reference to the Taluk Land Board in sub-section (9) is to be read as a reference to the Land Board. The effect of this Explanation is that the power to set aside its own order in certain circumstances which is conferred on the Taluk Land Board under sub-section (9) is also available to the Land Board under that sub-section. This Explanation has no reference to sub-section (9A) which was introduced at a much later date. Sub-section (9A) is in terms confined only to the Taluk Land Board.

We find support for this interpretation from the Statement of Objects and reasons accompanying Act 16/89. While it is not permissible to look at the Statement of objects and Reasons for construing Section 85 (9A), it can be used for the limited purpose of understanding the background and antecedent state of affairs leading up to Act 16/89. Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons states:

It has come to the notice of Government that as a result of collusion of the declarant and authorized officers and members of Taluk Land Board, declarants have escaped from surrendering the surplus land to Government. There is at present no provision to re-open such cases. It is considered necessary to confer the power for re-opening such cases on Taluk Land Boards by amending section 85 of the Act for the purpose.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons therefore have a clear reference to the Taluk Land Boards only. When we look at the composition of the Taluk Land Board which consists of six members nominated by the Government, as against the composition of the Land Board which is a high power body, the likelihood of collusion which is referred to in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, is far greater in the case of Taluk Land Boards than in the cave of the Land Board. It was in these circumstances that sub-section (9A) was added to Section 85 giving to the Taluk Land Boards the power to review their cases as set out therein. There is, therefore, no reference to the Land Board in Section 85 (9A). The power under sub-section (9A) of Section 85 is conferred only on the Taluk Land Boards. In these circumstances in the present case we fail to see how the Land Board can exercise the power conferred on the Taluk Land Boards u/s 85 (9A). In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original order of 7-7-1973 was passed by the Land Board, It is pointed out by learned Government Pleader that although by reason of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972, being Act 17/72, the Taluk Land Boards had already come into existence on the date when the said order was passed, the Land Board which was seized of the case of the appellant, had passed the order by virtue of the provisions in the Amending Act which permitted such cases to be continued, to be dealt with by the Land Board. Since the order is passed by the Land Board itself, the provisions of Section 85(9A) are not available in the present case. The notice, Ext. Pl, issued by the Land Board on 7-3-1990 is therefore clearly bad in law and the same is set aside.

In the premises, the Appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge, is set aside, and the O. P. is allowed as aforesaid. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.