Kurian Joseph, J.

Whether it is necessary to pass final orders in the matter of reopening of a case under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in exercise of the power conferred on the Taluk Land Board under Section 85(9A), within a period of three years is the issue to be considered in this case.

2. Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is the pioneer legislation in the country which introduced two revolutionary concepts, one on the ceiling on holdings by the landlord and the other on the right of the cultivating tenant. The predecessor piece of legislation the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 and the present Act have been subject matter of several litigations before various courts leading to celebrated decisions on many constitutional aspects. Kesavananda v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 S.C. 1461) is one such decision. Whether the legislation fully achieved the laudable objects is a matter of history. But the iron-will of the legislature in implementing the law in letter and spirit is seen reflected in various amendments to the parent Act. Section 85(9) of the Act is one such provision introduced in the year 1971, permitting the Taluk Land Board to set aside the final order in a ceiling case, in case it was satisfied that the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed from a landlord is less than the extent he was liable to surrender, where the lands surrendered by the person are not actually owned or held by him and where a case has been closed finding that the landlord was not liable and if he is later seen to hold lands in excess of the ceiling area. Initially a period of three years was fixed for such interference which was later extended to seven years. Despite such a pervasive power, the Government found that there were still loopholes. Instances of collusion, fraud and suppression of material facts came to the notice of the Government, necessitating a further amendment, and thus the sub-section 9A for review. The dispute is with regard to the interpretation of the expression ‘reopen’ used in the proviso. In the statement of objects and reasons in introducing sub-section 9A to Section 85 by Act 16 of 1989 published on 30.5.1989, it is stated as follows: -

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

3. Sub-section 9A to Section 85, thus introduced in 1989 reads as follows:-

85(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.”

(The amendment came into force on 30.5.1989).

4. In the judgment dated 5.10.1993 in W.A.1629/92, a Division Bench of this Court held that it is not sufficient that a notice is issued within a period of three years from 30.5.1989; the final order itself should be passed. To q