Kerala High Court
K.C.Thomas vs Thaluk Land Board,R.D.Office Vythiri on 17 October, 2024
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
2024:KER:78082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
OP NO. 4170 OF 1995
PETITIONER:
K.C.THOMAS,
S/O. CHACKO,
PUTHUMALA HOUSE,
GOODSHEPHERED HOSPITAL,
VYTHIRI.
BY ADV SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TALUK LAND BOARD,
REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE,
VYTHIRI.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
SCRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
SRI.M.H.HANILKUMAR,SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP NO.4170 OF 1995 2
2024:KER:78082
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J
&
P.M.MANOJ, J
-----------------------------------------
OP No.4170 of 1995
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024
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 Section 85(9A).
2024:KER:78082
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 in K.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
Section 85(9A) is applicable only to the notice and not to the
conclusion of the entire proceedings issued pursuant to Section
85(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,
2024:KER:78082
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
2024:KER:78082
prescribed under the proviso to S.85(9A). The
moment such a notice is issued by the Taluk Land
Board, it gets jurisdiction to proceed with the
process of review. That is all what is intended by
the expression 'reopen' as appearing in the proviso
to S.85(9A). Unless such a meaningful and
purposive interpretation is given to the proviso,
the very object of the amendment would be
defeated; it is not that difficult to evade a notice
and protract a proceedings beyond the cut off
date. Thus the provision intended to remedy a
situation caused by fraud and collusion would be
defeated again by such nefarious conducts. That is
not the purpose of law''.
In the light of Full Bench judgment, we are of the view
that impugned order is legally sustainable, as it was concluded
pursuant to a notice issued within three years as contemplated
under law. It does not suffer from any other irregularity.
This Original Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
sss
