Important Point
The provision of Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is intended to empower the Taluk Board to correct errors in its orders and not to upset judgment/order/decree of competent courts which are binding on the parties.

Headnote:Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 -Section 85(9)-Taluk Board’s power to reopen proceedings-Scope of power-Section 85(9) is intended to empower Board to correct error in its orders and not to upset judgment/order/decree of competent court which are binding on the parties-Matter which has attained finality inter-parties cannot be reopened on basis of subsequent decision of Court in another case.
       Held : The provision in Section 85(9), as we see it, is intended to enable the Board to set aside its order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be. The power vested in the Board under the provision is in wide terms, and therefore, the necessity for circumspection in exercise of the power. The provision is intended to empower the Board to correct errors in its orders and not to upset judgment/order/decree of competent courts which are binding on the parties. To hold otherwise will amount to vesting powers to reopen any proceeding disposed of by a competent court at any point of time (there is no period of limitation provided in the section) which may result in unsettling positions settled between the parties. On a fair reading of the provision it is to be held that the power to set aside its order and reopen a proceeding should be exercised by the Board in a fair and reasonable manner. In a case where the dispute on being determined by the Taluk Land Board was carried in revision to the High Court by the person affected or by the Government and the revisional order passed by the High Court was not challenged before superior Court and thus attained finality, to vest the power in the Taluk Land Board to ignore such an order and reopening the proceeding will not only result in unsettling settled positions between the parties but also go against judicial discipline. (Para 23)
       In the instant case the landholder-company claimed certain area as exempt from calculation of ceiling surplus land contending that as on 1.1.1970 the area was covered by rubber plantation. The claim was rejected by the Taluk Board on the ground that the area was not covered by plantation as on 1.4.1964. The High Court taking the view that companies were introduced into the Act by amendment of Section 82(1) with effect from 1.1.1970 and the relevant date for purpose of calculating ceiling surplus area in hands of company being 1.1.1970 remanded the case for fresh disposal. The Taluk Board by a consequent order implemented the order of the High Court and exempted the land in question. Subsequently, sometime thereafter a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court considering a similar question took the view that introduction of Section 82(1)(d) in the Act w.e.f. 1.1.1970 has no impact on the applicability of Section 82(4), and therefore, conversions of dry land into plantations after 1.4.1964 had to be ignored for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area even in relation to companies vide Kuruvila v. Taluk Land Board, 1980 KLT 53. The Board issued notice to reopen proceedings under Section 85(9) and ultimately dropped the proceedings holding that it had no jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings.
       Held : No doubt in the present case the order that was sought to be set aside was of the Board. But the said order was passed in pursuance to the directions of the High Court in the revision petition. In other words in substance and in effect, in passing the order the Board was only complying with the direction of the High Court. To vest jurisdiction in the Board to set aside such an order will be permitting the Board to interfere with the decision of the High Court which has attained finality inter-parties. (Para 24)
       On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Taluk Land Board rightly held that it had no power to reopen to proceeding in exercise of the powers vested in Section 85(9) and the High Court was in error in interfering with the said order of the Taluk Land Board. (Paras 26)

Judgment

Mohapatra, J.-The appellant M/s. Vellapally Plantations Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 owned a total extent of 130.47 acres of land. It filed a return under Section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming that out of the total area acres was covered by rubber plantation as on 1st January, 1970, and therefore, is to be exempted for the purpose of calculation of the ceiling surplus land. The Taluk Land Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) Kanjirapally did not accept the claim for exemption of the land since the area was not covered by plantation as on 1st April, 1964 and was converted into rubber plantation only thereafter. The Board treated the area in question as “other dry land” for the purpose of computation of ceiling surplus land. The Board by its order dated 24.2.1976 determined the ceiling surplus area to be 115.17 acres and directed the appellant to surrender the same. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 2274/1976, wherein the learned single Judge set aside the order taking the view that companies were introduced in the Act by amendment of Section 82(1)(d) by Act 35 of 1969 which came into force on January 1, 1970 and that the said date was the relevant date for calculation of the ceiling surplus area in the hands of the company. The High Court remitted the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal with the following observations :

“For the foregoing reasons the revision is allowed in part; the impugned order is set aside; and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in this order, and in accordance with law. The Taluk Land Board would ascertain as to what, if any, is the extent of land covered by rubber plantation as on 1.1.1970 out of the 130.47 acres held by the revision petitioner-company, and exempt such extent also, besides the extent of 30 cents already exempted, while reckoning the extent of land held by the revision petitioner for the purpose of ceiling area. There will be no order as to costs.”

2. The Board by a consequent order dated 18.5.1979 implementing the order of the High Court held that 125 acres being covered by rubber plantation as on 1.1.1970 the company could not be said to hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit. The proceeding was dropped.

3. Sometime thereafter a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court considering a similar question took the view that introduction of Section 82(1)(d) in the Act w.e.f. 1.1.1970 has no impact on the applicability of Section 82(4), and therefore, conversions of dry land into plantations after 1.4.1964 had to be ignored for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area even in relation to companies vide Kuruvila v. Taluk Land Board1. The High Court placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board2. The resultant position was that the decision of the Single Judge in Vallapally Plantations case (supra) stood overruled.

4. The Board in exercise of its power under Section 85(9) of the Act issued a notice to the company seeking re-opening of the proceeding and for re-determination of the ceiling surplus land in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Kuruvilla case (supra). The Company raised objection against the attempt at re-opening of the proceeding contending that the decision of the learned single Judge in Vallapally Plantations case (supra) had attained finality inter parties and could not be re-opened in exercise of the power under Section 85(9) of the Act. The contention found favour with majority of the Board which by order dated 20.2.1982 dropped the proceeding holding that it had no jurisdiction to re-open the proceedings.

5. The State challenged the said order in revision before the High Court in C.R.P. No. 562/83. Placing strong reliance on the language of Section 85(9) the State conte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 595

Important PointThe provision of Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is intended to empower the Taluk Board to correct errors in its orders and not to upset judgment/order/decree of competent courts which are binding on the parties.

Important Point
The provision of Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is intended to empower the Taluk Board to correct errors in its orders and not to upset judgment/order/decree of competent courts which are binding on the parties.