CHATHUNNY Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.85 (9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act enables the Taluk Land Board to set aside its order under sub-s.(5) or sub-s.(7) of S.85 and proceed afresh under that sub-section on satisfaction of any one of the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-s.(9). These matters are:

(2.) There are a batch of cases pending in this court where orders or action taken under S.85(9) have been challenged for various reasons. We are disposing of these cases together, but independent of the other cases, because a common question arises in all these cases. The order of the Taluk Land Board under S.85(5) or S.85(7) in these cases have been the subject matter of revision to the High Court under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. These revisions have been heard and disposed of. In some cases the revisions have been dismissed while in some cases the revisions have been allowed. In some the revisions have resulted in modification of the order of the Taluk Land Board. Whether the power under S.85(9) could be exercised in such cases is the question that arises in all these Original Petitions. That sub-section contemplates exercise of power by the Taluk Land Board to set aside "its" order under sub-s.(5) or sub-s.(7) necessarily indicating that it has no power to act under such sub-section if order to be set aside is the order of the High Court by reason of merger in an order of revision to the High Court. It is now well settled that whether there be an appeal or revision the original orders merge in such appellate or revisional orders. We need not go into this question elaborately because this position is conceded by the Additional Advocate General. The doctrine of merger of the order of the original authority in the order of the appellate or revisional authority has been considered recently by this court in the decision in Kannan v. Narayani reported in 1980 KLT 9 . Our attention had also been drawn to the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. M/s. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co reported in 1958 AIR SC 868, Madan Gopal Rungta v. The Secretary to the Government of Orissa and Others reported in AIR 1962 SC 1513 , Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta and Others reported in AIR 1963 SC 1124 and Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat reported in AIR 1970 SC 1 . In this view in cases where revisions filed against the orders of the Taluk Land Board had been disposed of on the merits the Taluk Land Beard will not be competent to exercise the power under S.85(9) as it will not then be setting aside its own order but that of the revisional authority with whose order the Taluk Land Board's order must be taken to have merged.

(3.) In all the cases before us revisions have been filed against the orders of the Taluk Land Board and those revisions have been finally disposed of. In this view the power under S.85(9) cannot be invoked in these cases. The Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings under S.85(9) quashed. No costs.