NACHIMUTHU Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD CHITTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a ceiling case against the common 4th respondent, he set up tenancies in favour of four different persons, who now figure as revision petitioners in these two revision petitions. On notice being issued to them, they appeared before the Taluk Land Board and set up tenancies in themselves. The Taluk Land Board went into the question of the tenancies so set up and rejected them. Thereupon the declarant as well as the alleged tenants filed C.R.P. No. 1987 of 1977 before this Court challenging the conclusion arrived at by the Land Board. This Court declined to interfere with the fielding of the Land Board rejecting the tenancies, but directed a remand of the case on a few other points in which only the declarant was interested. This Court also gave an opportunity to the declarant to re-exercise his right of option in regard to the identity of the lands required to be surrendered. After remand, the Taluk Land Board issued notice only to the declarant but not to the present revision petitioners and after deciding the surviving controversies acted on the option already given by the declarant which he reaffirmed and directed surrender of excess land. Among the lands so directed to be surrendered are included portions of the lands over which the revision petitioners originally claimed tenancy. The revision petitioners are aggrieved by this order.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Land Board proceeded illegally in not issuing fresh notices to the revision petitioner after remand of the case by this Court, that if notices had been issued to them they would have appeared before the Land Board and raised their contention that they have received certificates of purchase from the Land Tribunal and that, therefore, their interests are entitled to be protected. They also would have raised a contention regarding the option exercised by the declarant.

(3.) Even originally the declarant as well as the revision petitioners set up tenancies. The Taluk Land Board had rejected their claim and this Court in revision declined to interfere with that finding of the Land Board. All the certificates of purchase said to have been issued by the Land Tribunal have not been produced. Even the dates of the certificates are not given. There is, therefore, no material before me to verify whether the certificates have been actually issued, and if so, whether they were so issued before or after the date of the remand order passed by this Court in an earlier revision. A certificate of purchase would evidence the existence of tenancy in favour of the person to whom the certificate has been so issued. The tenancies set up by the declarant as well as the present revision petitioners have once been negatived by the Taluk Land Board and that order has been confirmed by this Court in revision. In so far as the parties are concerned, the earlier finding of the Taluk Land Board which has been confirmed by this Court, has become concluded. It is no longer open to them to contend that the earlier finding is erroneous or that it requires reconsideration. That could have been done only if they had approached the Supreme Court against the order of this Court in C. R. P. No. 1987 of 1977. Even the remand order of this Court noticed that in some cases purchase certificates were relied on, yet this Court refused to interfere with the finding of the Land Board. Obviously the inspiration for the present claim is the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board ( 1979 KLT 601 ) : ( AIR 1979 SC 1573 ), which has explained the scope of the Land Board's power and approach in considering certificates issued by the Land Tribunals. That decision cannot be made use of to upset settled decisions already arrived at by competent Land Board and this Court. That decision might have been helpful to the revision petitioners, if on the date of the Supreme Court decision, the question of tenancy was open before the competent authority. The decision of this Court in C. R. P. No 1987 of 1977 having become final, it is no longer open to the revision petitioners to reagitate their claims once again. Therefore, the question of issuing notice to them to enable them to reagitate questions of tenancy does not arise.