MARY MICHAEL Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P2 notice and subsequent proceedings taken for reopening the Land Ceiling Case. The Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg in its proceedings TLB 1865/73 / Hosd. dated 25.5.1976 directed the petitioner's husband to surrender 1.75 acres of surplus land to the Government under the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The aforesaid land was taken possession of by the third respondent . The above decision was taken by the Taluk Land Board excluding an extent of 3 acres of land disposed of by the statement given under Document No. 173 of 1969. That was challenged in CRP No. 1234/1975. When it was remanded, fresh order was passed by the Taluk Land Board holding that petitioner is not liable to surrender any land, Ext. P1 is the order passed by the Taluk Land Board. The above order dated 31.10.1978 became final. Thereafter the original declarant died and the properties were transferred. The petitioner received Ext. P2 notice reopening the proceedings. S.85(9A) provides as follows:

(2.) In the counter affidavit, it is stated that notice was issued on 14.5.1992, i.e.., 15 days prior to the expiry of the time. It is also stated that notice was returned unserved and thereafter fresh notice was issued correcting the earlier hearing date and posted for hearing on 7.7.1992. No evidence was produced. On going through Ext. P2 it is very clear that it was reopened only after the statutory time. Taluk Land Board was guilty in not mentioning the date of the notice and date of despatch of the above notice. Apart from the above, in Ext. P2 notice it is not stated that what are the documents suppressed by the petitioner. Earlier original declaration was filed on the basis of the original declaration Taluk Land Board passed an order. It was challenged in C.R.P. and this Court remanded and Ext. P1 order was passed after considering entire matter as directed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 12343/1975. A power to review is not for reconsideration of the matter afresh. In the absence of specific conditions mentioned in S.85(9A) i.e., failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession or by collusion or fraud or any suppression of materials, review under S.85(9A) is not possible. There is no case that petitioner had suppressed any material or there was collusion or fraud. It is also not stated that which document was suppressed to be produced or which material was suppressed to be produced. Therefore, even on merit apart from the question of time bar, proceedings taken under S.85(9A) is not maintainable.