The three-year limit under Section 85(9A) applies only to the notice for reopening proceedings, not to the final order, ensuring the law's purpose is upheld.

JUDGMENT

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J This original petition was referred to the Division Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement as to the impact of proviso to Section 85 (9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , wherein it is stipulated that 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 (for short ‘the Act’). The Act came into force on 30.05.1989 which means that the outer limit to reopen the proceedings is 29.05.1992.

2. The original petitioner received a notice on 30.04.1992, proposing to pass an order under Section 85 (9A) of the Act. The order of reopening was passed on 11.01.1995. This is questioned before this Court on the ground that this order was passed after expiry of the outer limit of three years as provided under proviso to (9A).

3. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter was of the view that authoritative pronouncement is required apparently noting a contrary view taken by another Single Judge. The question therefore arises whether actual reopening is necessary within the time prescribed under proviso to Section 85 (9A). A Full Bench of this Court heard the same issue much later to the reference order passed by the Single Judge in the year 2000. A Full Bench inK .V.Balan v. The State of Kerala and another [2006 KHC 1439], on same question of law was the view that the outer limit of three years as prescribed under (9A) is applicable only to the notice and not to the conclusion of the entire proceedings issued pursuant to (9A). It is appropriate to refer relevant para of the Full Bench judgment, which reads:

‘’The plain meaning of the expression 'reopen’ is to open again, to discuss again etc. It is significant too note that the review of a ceiling case already concluded is permissible under S.85(9A) only on limited grounds; (1) the decision was made due to failure to produce before the Taluk Land Board the relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession. (2) the decision was rendered as a result of collusion or fraud and (3) the order was passed in a proceedings where material facts were suppressed. It is also to be noted that only if the Taluk Land Board is satisfied, after giving opportunity to the parties for being heard, that there were any of the vitiating factors referred to above, the settled order can be reviewed. However, as far as the process of reopening is concerned; the legislation has not contemplated any notice to the affected party and entering a satisfaction after hearing the parties at that stage. In other words, in order to reopen an order in a ceiling case rendered under sub-s.(5), (7) or (9) of S.85, for the purpose of reviewing the decision on any of the available grounds referred to above under S.85(9A) it is not necessary to pass an order after hearing the parties. The Taluk Land Board need only reopen the file and inform the parties of its intention to review the decision. Whether the case is liable to be reviewed on any of the three available factors referred to above is a matter for the affected parties to prosecute before the Taluk Land Board since the Taluk Land Board is liable to afford an opportunity for hearing to the affected parties and enter a satisfaction regarding the availability of vitiating factors. Thus for the process of reopening a decision rendered by the Taluk Land Board under S.85(5), (7) or (9), it need only send a notice informing its intention to review the case. The outer time limit of three years is applicable only to the notice. There is no time limit for passing the final order in the matter of review under S.85(9A). Reopening is thus only the setting in motion of the process for the purpose of review and that is satisfied by issuing a notice before 30/05/1992, within the three year period prescribed under t