Land Board lacks power to review or set aside its own prior orders under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act absent statutory review provision.

The appellants are in appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in OP No.37855/2002.

2. Though the impugned judgment runs into several pages, the essential issue, as relevant and germane; is in a very small compass.

3. The appellants claim to be the owners of the lands covered by the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”); and they assert title from the “Poonjar Chief”.

4. The appellants alleged that, even though they have rights over the properties, they were kept away and not notified when the Land Board issued an order on 29.03.1974 in favour of the sixth respondent; and consequently, that they filed Ext.P18 application, invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of “the Act”, seeking that the aforementioned Award be set aside, since it had been “fraudulently secured” and “passed without observing Statutes and are therefore, ultra vires” (sic).

5. The Land Board rejected Ext.P18 application through Ext.P19 order, holding that it had no power to consider any such application, particularly at the instance of the appellants; against which, the latter approached this Court through OP No.37855/2002.

6. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has found against the appellants, also on the ground of delay; and they assail it through this appeal before us.

7. Sri.Sathish Murthi – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that, even “the Act” does not preclude his clients from claiming title over the property; and he relied upon Section 3 thereof, to assert that, even if “the Act” is taken to cover all the lands situated in the Kannan Devan Hills Village, plantations stand expressly exempted and consequently, that his clients are legally capable and entitled to claim title over it, as per law. He contended that, it is in such perspective that his clients filed Ext.P18 application before the Land Board because, Ext.P17 order had been issued by it without adverting to this vital aspect. He predicated that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the appellants' contentions in its right perspective, rather than have taken a “technical view” and to have dismissed the Original Petition, inter alia, on the ground of delay. He explained that his clients came to be aware of the order of the Land Board only in the year 2002; resultant to which, they moved the application before it; and that, when it was dismissed through Ext.P9, they approached this Court in the same year, thus contending that there is no delay at all.

8. Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.R.Sudhir – appearing for respondents 7 to 15, supported the submissions of Sri.Satish Murthi; and supplemented it, arguing that “the Act” does not take away title of the original owners, who derived the same through their predecessor-in- interest, namely the “Poonjar Chief.” He added that his clients, as also the appellants, have already invoked their civil remedies before the competent Civil Court through Civil Suits and that they are still pending. He then argued that the appellants are justified in filing this appeal because, Ext.P17 order of the Land Board has been issued in a manner unknown to law and contrary to the stipulations in “the Act”. He thus pleaded that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside; and that this Court grant reliefs, as has been sought for in the writ petition.

9. Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Alexander Markose – appearing for the sixth respondent, in response, refuted the afore submissions, maintaining that, as per “the Act”, the right, title and i