- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Kerala v. P.V Mathew
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision petition was filed by the State against an order of the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam, in a ceiling-retain matter initiated by the respondent-declarant. The Taluk Land Board originally directed surrender of 39.81 acres as excess land. The respondent filed C.R.P. 4433 of 1976 before this Court, which was allowed and remanded for fresh disposal. On 8-2-1979 the Taluk Land Board ordered the respondent to surrender 18.25 acres. That order was challenged by the respondent in C.R.P. 607 of 1979; this Court allowed that C.R.P. and granted exemption in respect of 11.19 acres, directing the declarant to surrender 7.06 acres and to submit a statement of option for surrender. Subsequently, by order dated 23-3-1982 the Taluk Land Board granted further exemption of 5 acres 6.250 cents on the basis of an authorised officer's report and an additional exemption of 42 cents for rocky land. The revision petitioner challenged the Taluk Land Board's later order as highly illegal and contrary to this Court's order in C.R.P. 607 of 1979.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Taluk Land Board can exercise the power under S. 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to set aside or vary its earlier orders in a case where this Court's revisional order (in C.R.P. 607 of 1979) has become final.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 S.C. 633 | The principle that a judgment pronounced by a High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction after notice and full hearing replaces the judgment of the lower court and constitutes the final judgment to be executed by the Court below. | The Court relied on this principle to conclude that where this Court's revisional order (C.R.P. 607 of 1979) had become final and binding, the Taluk Land Board could not, under S.85(9), set aside or modify that final order or purport to give further exemptions that would effectively alter the High Court's judgment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by reference to the factual and procedural chronology: the Taluk Land Board's original direction for surrender, this Court's intervention in C.R.P. proceedings (particularly C.R.P. 607 of 1979), and the subsequent actions of the Taluk Land Board in granting further exemptions after this Court had directed surrender of 7.06 acres.
The statutory provision under consideration was S. 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which permits the Taluk Land Board to set aside its orders under certain sub-sections and to proceed afresh where, for example, lands surrendered are less than liable, or where the lands surrendered are not lawfully owned. The proviso to S.85(9) requires that persons affected be given an opportunity to be heard before an order is set aside.
The Court analysed the scope of S.85(9) in light of the finality of this Court's revisional order. It held that while the Taluk Land Board can set aside its own orders in appropriate cases under S.85(9), it cannot use S.85(9) to modify or set aside an order that has been made final by the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Court relied on the principle articulated in U.J.S. Chopra that a High Court judgment in appellate/revisional jurisdiction, after full hearing, replaces the judgment of the lower forum and is the final judgment to be executed by the lower court. Consequently, any later action by the Taluk Land Board which has the effect of altering the High Court's final order cannot be sustained.
Applying that reasoning to the present facts, the Court concluded that the Taluk Land Board was not justified in giving further exemptions to the respondent after this Court had finally directed surrender of 7.06 acres, and that the Land Board's order of 23-3-1982 (granting further exemption) amounted to impermissible interference with this Court's final order.
Holding and Implications
Revision petition allowed; the Taluk Land Board's order set aside.
Implications and direct consequences:
- The Taluk Land Board's order granting further exemption (dated 23-3-1982) was set aside by this Court.
- The respondent is required to surrender 7.06 acres of land as excess land, as directed in the order in C.R.P. 607 of 1979.
- The C.R.P. (the revision petition before this Court) is allowed and there is no order as to costs.
The opinion does not purport to create a new legal precedent beyond applying established principles of finality of revisional orders; it confines its effect to the direct parties and the specific administrative act set aside.
1. The revision petition is filed by the State against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam. The respondent filed ceiling retain before the Taluk Land Board. It was disposed of by the Taluk Land Board with a direction to surrender an extent of 39.81 acres of excess land. Respandent-deciaram filed C.R.P 4433 of 1976 before this Court. The C.R.P was allowed and the case was remanded with a direction for fresh disposal. The Taluk Land Board passed order on 8-2-1979 directing the respondent to surrender an extent, of 18.25 acres as excess land. This order was challenged by the respondent in C.R.P 607 of 1979. That C.RP was allowed and the lespondent was granted exemption in respect of 11.19 acres of land. The declarant was directed to surrender 7.06 acres of land and to file a statement regarding his option for surrender. The Taluk Land Board by order dated 23-3-1982 gianted further exemption in respect of 5 acres 6.250 cents of land. That was done on the basis of the report of the authorised officer. Exemption of 42 cents was also given on the ground that the area being rocky. The revision petitioner challenges the Taluk Land Board's order on the ground that it is highly illegal and opposed to the order of this Court in C.R.P 607 of 1979.
2. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Taluk Land Board can exercise power under S. 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in a case where this Court's order has become final. It is the admitted case that in C.R.P 607 of 1979 this Court in unequivocable terms held that the respondent has to surrender 7.06 acres of land. The respondent was also directed to submit a statement of option for surrender of the excess land. It is thereafter that the Taluk Land Board give further exemption as aforesaid. As the order of this Court in CRP. 609 of 1979 has became final the Taluk Land Board was not at all justified in giving further exemption in favour of the respondent.
3. Under S. 85(9) of the Kerala Land Refors Act the Taluk Land Board has the power to set aside its order under Sub-s. (5) or Sub-s. (7), as the case may be, and it can proceed afresh if it is satisfied that the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person under S. 86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of the Act or the land surrendered by, or assumed from, a person are not lawfully owned or held by him, or in a case where a person is, according to such order, not liable to surrender any land, such person owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling area. The proviso commands the Taluk Land Board not to set aside any order without giving the persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. Undoubtedly Land Board can set aside its order, in appropriate cases under S. 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As this Court in C.R.P 607 of 1979 directed the respondent-declarant to surrender 7.06 acres as excess land it is no longer open to him to canvass a position whereby he could claim further exemption from the Taluk Land Board. Under S 85(9) of the (Cecals Land Reforms Act it will not be oompetent for the Land Board to make any modification with regard to the order of this Court whish has become; final. When revision filed before this Court against the order of the Taluk Land Board has become final it cannot at all be satd that tharsafcer it would be open to the Taluk Land Board to exercise power under S. 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
4. It would be useful to refer to the decision reported in U.J.S Chopra v. State of Bombay, (AIR 1955 S.C 633) where it is held as follows:
“A judgment pronounced by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction after issue of a notice and a full hearing in the presence of both the parties would certainly be arrived at after due consideration of the evidence and all the arguments and would therefore be a judgment and such judgment when pronounced would replace the judgment of the lower court, thus constituting the judgment of the High Coust the only final judgmentgto be executed in accordance with law by the Court below”.
5. Thus in this case the order in C.R.P 607 of 1979 has become final and binding on the parties. In such situation it will not be competent to the Taluk Land Board to exercise the power under S. 85(9) as it will not thus be setting aside its own order but that of the revisional authority, with whose order she Taluk Land Boards's order must be taken to have merged. The Taluk Land Board was not justified in interfering with the order of this Court and exempting further extent of land in favour of the respondent.
6. The order of the Taluk Land Board is hereby set aside.
7. The resultant position is that the respondent will have to surrender 7.06 acres of land as excess land as indicated in the order in C.R.P 607 of 1979.
8. The C.R.P is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
9. Allowed.
Alert