The legal provision allowing the review of a decision by the Taluk Land Board does not apply when the decision was granted by a mistaken notion of law.

In this Original Petition, Petitioner challenges Ext. P4 proceedings of Taluk Land Board, Quilandy.

2. As per the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board evidenced by Ext. P1 dated 18-12-1980; petitioner was directed to surrender 27.78 acres of land. Pursuant to this, petitioner surrendered the said exlent of land. More than 10 years after Ext. P1 order was passed, notice Ext. P2 was issued purporting to be under S.85(9A) of Kerala Land Reforms Act stating that the ceiling case was disposed of by proceedings dated 18-12-80, but on a further verification, it was seen that the decision taken by the Taluk Land Board was without proper verification of land and documentary evidence. It is further stated that an extent of 1.50 acres in R.S.2/3 and 2/5 of Keezhariyur Village was seen exempted under S.87 of Land Reforms Act being the water channel, and that there is no provision in the Act to exempt the water channel and therefore the Taluk Land Board purpose to issue show cause notice to re-open the case under S.85(9A) of K.L.R. Act as amended By Act 16/89. Pursuant to this, petitioner filed Ext. P3 objection, stating that channels will not come within the definition of land, that the present order was passed after 17 years and that there is no ground to review the order. However, the Taluk Land Board passed an order holding that 1.50 acres in R.S.2/3 and 2/5 was exempted as water channel, though there was no provision to exempt such a water channel in the KL.R.Act. The only ground stated in Ext. P4 order to invoke the jurisdiction under S.85(9A) is that water channel is not an item liable to be exempted under the K.L.R. Act.

3. Sub-section (9A) of S.85 reads 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 judgement, 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". A reading of the above Section would show that the decision granted by mistaken notion of law cannot be brought within the purview of sub-section (9A) of S.85. Only in a case where decision was rendered due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or by collusion or fraud or suppression of material facts that the Taluk Land Board has been empowered to invoke S.85(9A). Here, the notice or order does not disclose any of these facts. In the circumstances I am unable to sustain Ext. P4 order. I accordingly quash Ext. P4.

Original Petition is disposed of as above.