The court ruled that reopening land ceiling proceedings beyond the limitation period is impermissible, ensuring finality in administrative decisions.

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Writ Appeal preferred by the State impugns the judgment dated 23.07.2018 in WP(C).No.17530 of 2018.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:

The writ petitioner, Gokulabhai, is the widow of late E.V.Narayanan, who was the declarant in C.C.583/1973 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur. It would appear that 37.02 acres of land (consisting of 15.02 acres in old Survey No.435Q/1pt and 22 acres of unsurveyed land in Muthalamada 2 village) and another extent of 3.42 acres of land (consisting of 2.84 acres in old Survey No.435Q/1 and 0.58 acres of land in unsurveyed land), were taken possession by the Government as excess land under the provisions of the Kerala land Reforms Act and the Ceiling Rules framed thereunder. The Taluk Land Board, Chittur, thereafter passed an order dated 19.04.1976 in C.C 758/1973. The entire proceedings in that regard were duly completed in the year 1978 itself, and the excess property of the respondent's husband (declarant) was duly taken possession by the Government.

3. In the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner Gokulabhai was aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated 16.04.2018 that was passed by the appellants herein, which contemplated the recovery of an extent of land which was in her ownership and possession. A perusal of Ext.P2 order would indicate that pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment in WP (C) No.36337/2017 that was filed by a person alleging that his land had been erroneously included in the excess lands surrendered by E.V. Narayanan (The declarant), the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) had inspected the area and found that there was, in fact, land belonging to the petitioners in WP (C) No.36337/2017 that was included in the surrendered lands of the original declarant, and that land had therefore had to be re-conveyed to the rightful owners after denotifying the reservation for public purposes. The Dy. Collector however went on to hold that an equivalent extent of land had to be recovered from the writ petitioners herein by re-opening the ceiling proceedings of the Taluk Land Board.

4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found as follows in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment:

“10. It can be seen that the period of limitation mentioned in the second proviso to subsection (9) of Sec. 85 is that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate any proceedings under Sec.85 after the expiry of seven years from the date on which order sought to be satisfied has become final. In the instant case, the said period of limitation has expired long ago. Therefore, there is no question of the Taluk Land Board reopening the proceedings as envisaged in subsection (9) of Sec. 85. The petitioner's counsel would argue that even if there is a dispute in respect of the title regarding the above said land, specific bars have been engranted as per the first proviso and third proviso of subsection (4) of Sec.84 of the KLR Act, which is attracted in the instant case. One aspect of the matter is very clear that the period of limitation prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (9) of Sec. 85 of the KLR Act has expired long and therefore there is no question of taking any action as sought to be done as against the lands of the original declarant, at this distance of time, as now proposed by the concluding portion of para No.5 of Ext.P-2 order. Accordingly, it is ordered that Ext.P-2 to the limited extent it is ordered in the concluding portion of para 5 thereof that it is proposed to take over the lands from the original declarant, etc. will stand set aside. No other issues are decided in this case.”

5. In essence, what the learned Single Judge found was that since