Kunchalu vs Taluk Land Board and Others

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice K.K. Usha

The revision arises out of an order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna in S.R.656/73 dt. 30-11-1993 under sec. 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. By proceedings dt.5-8-1975, Land Board had found that the petitioner is liable to surrender an extent of 9.95 Acres of land as land in excess of ceiling area. Properties were taken possession of immediately thereafter. After the introduction of Sec.85(9A) giving power to the Land Tribunal to review its decision, show cause notice dt. 19-5-92 was issued to the petitioner. After referring to the order dt.5-8-1975, it was mentioned in the notice that on scrutiny, an error was found in allowing exemption of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.221 of Kunnapally desom, Pathaikadu village for public road. As there is no provision in the Kerala Land Reforms Act to grant exemption for road, petitioner was directed to show cause as to why earlier order of the Taluk Land Board dt. 5-8-1975 shall not be set aside and revised afresh under Sec.85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. To the above notice, petitioner filed objection. After considering the objection, original order dt.5-8-1975 was ''set aside'' and the case was re-opened under sec.85(9A). A revised draft statement under Rule 12(1) was also issued in which 2 acres of land referred above treated as not entitled to exemption. Ultimately, the matter was heard by the Land Board and it was found that the 2 acres of land mentioned above, is not in the possession of the declarant. It lies outside the compound wall constructed by him and it is being used by the public as a pathway, eventhough a road as such has not been formed. Under these circumstances, it was held that exemption granted in the original order dt.5-8-1975 has to be sustained and the proceedings under sec.85(9A) was dropped. The contention raised by the revision petitioner is that since the wording of the notices was to the effect that the original order is ''set aside'', the entire matter was at large and the Land Board should have considered the other points raised in the objection filed by the declarant also while passing the impugned order. According to the revision petitioner, at the stage of the original proceeding itself, he had claimed certain exemption as covered by plantation and ancillary activities. Those contentions were not accepted by the Land Board in its original order dt.5-8-1975. Since that order was ''set aside'' while proceeding u/s. 85(9A), Land Board was bound to consider all his claims for exemption which were originally raised before the Land Board. It was submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader that except to the extent it was sought to be re-opened (u/s.85(9A), petitioner cannot claim that all his objections are to be considered in the proceedings u/s.85(9A).

I do not find any merit in the complaint of the revision petitioner. Section 85(9A) provides that the Taluk Land Board, if it is satisfied that its decision under sub-section (5) or sub-sec. (7) or sub-sec.(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, may review such decision after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. This power is given to the Taluk Land Board notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act or the Limitation Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority. But, I am of the view that the review that is contemplated under sec.85(9A) is only to the extent the Land Board found that its order is liable to be reviewed. Notice issued to the petitioner in this case would clearly show that the review was limited only to the extent of two acres in respect of which exemption was granted to him as property surrendered for forming a road. That being the position, merely on the basis of the wording that the order dt.5-8-1975 is ''set aside'', it cannot be contended that the entire order is set aside. It is also relevant to note that the declarant is not given any right to get the order re-opened under Sec.85(9A). In this case, the proposal in the notice to set aside the order has to be understood only to the extent of granting exemption in respect of the two acres of land. This is made clear by the wording of the final order, ''the proceedings are finally dropped''.

The revision petition is without any merit and therefore it stands dismissed.