SAHADEVAN Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the challenges by the petitioners are to the proceedings taken by the various Taluk Land Boards against persons who had been found by prior orders of the Taluk Land Board to have excess lands which they were liable to surrender or who by prior orders have been found to have no excess land. In such cases invoking the provision in S.85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (in short the Act) the respective Taluk Land Boards have initiated proceedings against the petitioners for setting aside the prior orders passed under S.85(5) or 85(7) of the Act so as to make fresh orders determining the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. The petitioners in these cases challenge such action of the Taluk Land Boards on the ground that S.85(9) cannot be invoked in such circumstances. The grounds of challenge urged may be stated thus:

(2.) S.101(4) of the Act provides for finality of the decision of the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, on any question concerning exemption under S.81 of the Act which arises for determination by the Taluk Land Board. Determination under S.85(5) or (7) about the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered may involve the decision on the question of the lands which are to be exempted under S.81 of the Act. Such decision regarding exemption involved in the final determination would fall under S.101(4) of the Act which provides for finality of such decision. Therefore even if the Taluk Land Board could reopen its order under S.85(9) it cannot reopen the decision under S.101(4) of the Act.

(3.) S.85(9) contemplates setting aside the Order under S.85(5) or 85(7) and not a decision under S.101(4) and therefore" in exercise of the power under S.85(9) the question of exemption cannot be reagitated. Even if a different view is held by the Board that will not enable the Board to reopen the order to the extent of the decision concerning exemption since it is only the decision under S.85(5) or 85(7) that could be reopened and not the decision under S.101(4).