STATE OF KERALA Vs. IDICULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the State of Kerala against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kunnathur in suo motu case No. 17 of 1977 taken against the respondent under S.87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, for short the Act. The points are:

(2.) In C. C. Nos. 178 of 1973 and 179 of 1973, the Taluk Land Board, Kunnathur fixed the ceiling of the respondent under S.85 of the Act and directed him to surrender 12.23 acres as excess lands. In the draft statement issued, the Taluk Land Board had also included in the total extent 5.50 acres purchased by the respondent after 1-4-1970. The final order of the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the respondent in CRP. No. 523 of 1975 before this Court and this Court held that 5 50 acres acquired by the respondent after 1-1-1970 cannot be included in the total extent of the lands of the respondent for the purposes of fixing his ceiling under S.85 of the Act. Accordingly, the Taluk Land Board was directed to exclude the above 5 50 acres from the extent of lands directed to be surrendered by the respondent. The Taluk Land Board modified its order as directed by this Court. Thereafter, it initiated suo motu proceedings under S.87 of the Act against the respondent as, according to it, the respondent has acquired 5.50 acres after 1-1-1970. A draft statement was issued. The power of attorney holder of the respondent objected to the proceedings. The main objection taken was that no fresh proceedings can be initiated against the respondent since the 5.50 acres in question was already included in an earlier ceiling case taken against the respondent and that was finally disposed of by this Court excluding this 5.50 acres from the ceiling area. It was also contended that the decision in the earlier ceiling case will be res judicata in this case. The Taluk Land Board thereupon dropped the proceedings initiated under S.87 of the Act by the impugned order. The reason given in the order for dropping the proceedings is 'in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in CRP. No. 523 of 1975'.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader contended that the Taluk Land Board has the power to fix the ceiling of the respondent under S.87 of the Act even though it has already fixed his ceiling under S.85 of the Act in view of the fact that the respondent acquired lands after 1-1-1970. According to the learned Government Pleader, the mere fact that the Taluk Land Board wrongly included the extent acquired after 1-1-1970 in the draft statement issued under S.85 of the Act cannot bar fresh proceedings under S.87 of the Act. The learned Government Pleader further contended that there is no res judicata simply because the extent acquired was wrongly included in the draft statement under S.85. It was also pointed out that the extent acquired was ultimately excluded from the total extent of the respondent in the earlier case as that extent cannot be included in the total extent in those proceedings. Shri. K. S. Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board dropping the proceedings on the ground that a Taluk Land Board has no power under S.87 of the Act to initiate suo motu proceedings without the prior intimation of the Land Board, Trivandrum. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of S.85(7) of the Act will be attracted to proceedings initiated under S.87 of the Act also.