Back
1981 Supreme(Ker) 156
Judges : U.L.BHAT
VELAYUDHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 1097 of 1979
Decided On : 07/24/1981
Advocates Appeared :
K. Chandrasekharan; P.N.K. Achan; K. Vijavan; N.N. Sugunapalan; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
The legislative intent behind S.85(8) is to provide an opportunity for hearing to interested persons, and the eligibility to seek remedy under S.85(8) is not limited to strangers but extends to individuals having a genuine claim or interest in the land.
Headnote:
S.85(8) - Ceiling Case - Kerala Act 1 of 1964 - S.85(5)(c), S.85(8), S.85(9), R.14(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) R.1970 - The court discussed the interpretation of S.85(8) and its relation to the timing of filing an application, the authority of the Taluk Land Board, and the eligibility of interested persons to seek remedy under S.85(8). The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for hearing to interested persons and the legislative intent behind S.85(8). The decision highlighted the distinction between S.85(8) and S.85(9) and the implications of the merger of orders in the context of seeking remedy under S.85(8).
Fact of the Case:
The 4th respondent's son filed an application under S.85(8) of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 to set aside an order passed by the Taluk Land Board, claiming that the land belonged to his family. The application was dismissed due to delay, and the court was challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under S.85(8) was filed within time and emphasized the importance of providing a hearing to interested persons. It held that the son of the 4th respondent, if having a claim over the land, is entitled to seek the remedy provided under S.85(8). The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for disposal according to law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of filing an application under S.85(8), the authority of the Taluk Land Board, and the eligibility of interested persons to seek remedy under S.85(8).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legislative intent behind S.85(8) to provide an opportunity for hearing to interested persons and highlighted the distinction between S.85(8) and S.85(9). It held that the son of the 4th respondent, if having a claim over the land, is entitled to seek the remedy provided under S.85(8).
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The case was remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for disposal according to law.
1. In a ceiling case against the 4th respondent an order under S.85(5)(c) of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short the 'Act') was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 15-12-1975 and it was confirmed in revision by this Court on 3-11-1976. On 13-11-1976 the 4th respondent's major son (revision petitioner) filed an application under S 85(8) of the Act for setting aside the order on the ground that the land held to be belonging to his mother does not belong to her but belongs to bis family, the same having been acquired by his father for the benefit of the family. Since the application was filed not within 60 days but nearly eleven months after the date of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board and since the ground urged for condoning the delay was not acceptable, the Taluk Land Board dismissed the application and this order is now challenged.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the period of 60 days for filing the application under S.85(8) of the Act will commence only from the date of the disposal of the CRP by this court, i.e. 3-11-1976 and not from the date of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, i. e. 15-12-1975 and hence the application filed on 13-11-1976 was within time. The learned Government Pleader contended that irrespective of the filing of revision and disposal of the same, the period of 60 days has to be calculated from the date of the order of the Taluk Land Board. He also contended that the applicant being the son of the declarant, cannot be treated as ;'a person interested" eligible to move the Taluk Land Board under S.85(8) of the Act
3. S 85 (8) of the Act states that where the Taluk Land Board determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by any person without hearing any person interested, such person may, within sixty days from the date of such determination, apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order and, if he satisfies the Taluk Land Board that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the Taluk Land Board, it shall set aside the order and shall proceed under sub section (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be. R.14 (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) R.1970 (for short the 'Rules') prescribes that the application under S.85 (8) shall be in Form No. 6. Clause (2) of the rule enables the Taluk Land Board to make or cause to be made such enquiries, investigations and verifications as it deems necessary. Clause (3) of the rule states that the Taluk Land Board shall not reject the application without hearing the applicant.
4. The period of 60 days for filing the application commences from the date of "such determination" of the extent of the land to be surrendered. Where the order of the Taluk Land Board has become final not having been challenged in revision under S.103 of the Act there can be no doubt that period of 60 days must be counted from the date of the order of the Taluk Land Board. Where the order of the Taluk Land Board has been challenged in revision under S.103 of the Act and the revision has been disposed of on merits by the High Court either by confirmation, or modification, the order of the Taluk Land Board merges in the order of the revising court, (vide Chathunni v. Taluk Land Board (1981 KLT. 74)) In such a case the date of determination of the extent of the land to be surrendered can only be the date of the disposal of the revision by this Court. The same view has been taken in the decision in Krishnan v. Taluk Land Board, Vaikom (1979 KLT. 209) where Narendran, J. observed:
"As petitioner has approached the Taluk Land Board within sixty days of the order in the Civil Revision Petition the application is not barred by limitation."
5. It is suggested in the course of the arguments that if this view be taken, it has to be held, following the dictum in Chathunni's case, that Taluk Land Board cannot set aside an order which has merged in the revisional order under S.103 of the Act. In Chathunni's case this Court h
