The power vested in the Taluk Land Board under Section 85 (9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to set aside its order and reopen a proceeding should be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. The Board cannot use this power to upset judgments/orders/decrees of competent courts which are binding on the parties.

Judgment

MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) 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 125 acres was covered by rubber plantation as on 1/01/1970, 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 1/04/1964 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 1/01/1970 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 Board, 1980 Ker LT 53 : (AIR 1980 Kerala 102 ). The High Court placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mathew (C. Veettil Ammad) v. Taluk Land Board 1979 Ker LT 601 : (AIR 1979 SC 1573 ). 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 (AIR 1980 Kerala 102) (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