The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no time limit fixed in the Kerala Land Reforms Act to complete the proceedings after reopening a case under S.85(9) and S.85(9A).

K. Narayana Kurup, J.

1. Appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No. 10162/96. The Original Petitioner had been filed challenging the legality of Exts.P2, P5 and P7 issued by the second respondent Taluk Land Board. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

2. The appellant had filed a statement under S.85(A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') showing the total extend of land held by the appellant before the second respondent Land Board. The second respondent by Ext.P1 order dated 30.11.1981 held that the appellant was not in possession of land exceeding the ceiling limit. Thereafter, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 notice dated 14.11.1984 on the appellant intimating that the case is reopened and the hearing is posted to 21.11.1984 at 2.p.m. The appellant challenged Ext.P3 notice before this Court in C.R.P.No. 103/85 on the ground that Ext.P3 was illegal and void since it had been passed without applying the mandatory requirements under the proviso to S.85(9) of the Act which provides for hearing the affected person before setting aside an order. The said C.R.P. was disposed of as per Ext.P4 order dated 19.6.1986 directing that the appellant shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the original order is set aside. Accordingly, Ext.P5 fresh notice was issued on 29.8.1986 which was got served on the appellant on 30.8.1986 . Pursuant to Ext.P5 the appellant filed Ext.P6 objection in which it is pointed out that Ext.P5 notice was issued beyond the time limit prescribed by law. Thereafter the second respondent passed Ext.P7 proceedings dated 17.9.1996, holding that Ext.P5 notice dated 28.8.1986 is in continuation of Ext.P3 notice dated 14.11.1984. The relevant portion of Ext.P7 is extracted as under:

".........In this case the final order was passed on 30.11/81. But an order reopening the case was issued on 14.11/84 which is within the time limit. The declarant challenged this order in CRP 103/85. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the CRPon 19.8.'86 with the following observation "I make it clear that the previous order shall be set aside if necessary only after giving the revision petitioner an opportunity to place his points against such a course." The notice issued on 28.8.'86 is as per the above direction and it is in continuation of the notice issued on 14.11.'84 because the notice issued as per Taluk Land Board No. 2/84 dated 14.11.'84 has been referred to therein as reference No.2 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court as reference No. 3. The notice issued on 28.8.86 is therefore within the time and the details called for on 24.5.'96 is also part of the proceedings."

However, before Ext. P7, Ext. P2 notice dated 24.5.'96 was issued by the Chairman, Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady fixing the ceiling case of the appellant for hearing on 18.6.96 and directing the appellant to appear with connected records. Being aggrieved by Exts. P2, P5 and P7, the appellant moved this Court with the present Writ Petition out of which this Writ Appeal arises, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P2, P5 and P7 and for other reliefs. A learned Single Judge of this Court by the judgment impugned in this appeal, dismissed the Original Petition observing as follows:

"In the instant case, it is evident that Ext. P3 notice was issued under S.85(9) within three years. Original order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 30.11.1981 and Ext. P3 notice was issued on 14.11.1984. While disposing of the C.R.P. No. 103/85, this Court only recorded the submission of learned Government Pleader that the order has not yet been set aside, and it will be done only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Obviously, in consonance with the first proviso to S.85(9) this Court has not set aside Ext. P3 notice. Subsequently Taluk Land Board issued Ext. P5 show cause notice. Therefore, it can be concluded that the reopening of the case was within three years.

There is no