MATHEW MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings relating to the land held by the declarant Mathew Mathai, the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1206 of 1979 and the second respondent in C. R. P. 1965 of 1979, the Taluk Land Board originally determined the excess land belonging to him and directed him to surrender 8.32 acres of land as excess land. The declarant challenged the order before this Court in C.R.P. No. 76 of 1976, but the revision was dismissed on 4-10-1976. Thereafter Avira Ithapiri, the claimant, who is the second respondent in C. R. P. 1965 of 1979 moved an application under Section 85 (8) of Act 1 of 1964 contending that he is a tenant under the declarant in regard to 3.80 acres of land. The Taluk Land Board went into the claim and rejected his claim on 18-5-1977. This order was set aside in C. R. P. 1488 of 1977. This Court remanded the proceedings for fresh disposal. Thereafter the Land Board again went into the claim and upheld tenancy pleaded by him by a majority of 4 : 1, the Chairman alone dissenting. This order accepting the tenancy set up by the claimant is challenged by the State in C. R. P. 1965 of 1979. The declarant has filed C. R. P. 1206 of 1979 contending that when once the earlier order under Section 85 (5) of the Act has been set aside under Section 85 (8) of the Act, the Taluk Land Board had a duty to go into all the contentions put forward by him on merits, even those contentions which had been rejected earlier by the Taluk Land Board and also by this Court The C. R. P. is filed because the Taluk Land Board did not go into these contentions of his.

(2.) The claimant who was not interested in the other disputes in the case and other land belonging to the declarant put forward only a claim to an extent of 3.82 acres as tenant under the declarant. On the first occasion the Taluk Land Board came to a definite finding that the tenancy set up is not true. Afterwards, the Taluk Land. Board by a majority came to a definite decision that the tenancy set up is true. The earlier finding that the tenancy set up is false was set aside by this Court in the background of the scope of the enquiry under Section 85 (8) of the Act as explained in the order of this Court I quote : "The Taluk Land Board has proceeded on the basis that the applicants have not established their tenancies. Under Section 85 (8), all that they need show is that they are persons interested in the land to be surrendered, and had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the Taluk Land Board earlier. The approach of the Taluk Land Board is therefore erroneous and the order has to be set aside. I do so."

(3.) The parties are bound by the decision of this Court. This means that the Taluk Land Board has to proceed on the basis that the scope of enquiry under Section 85 (8) is very limited namely, to find whether the claimant is an interested person in the property and he was prevented by sufficient reason from appearing earlier before the Taluk Land Board. In other words, when a claimant sets up a tenancy, the Taluk Land Board initially is not called upon to adjudicate on the question whether the tenancy set up is true or not. What it is called upon to decide is the limited question whether on the basis of the materials placed before it if can be held that the claimant is a person interested in the property. In spite of this specific observation made by this Court earlier, it is unfortunate that the Taluk Land Board did not limit itself to a consideration of this limited question; on the other hand, the Taluk Land Board proceeded further and came to a definite finding that the tenancy, set up is true. If such a finding is arrived in the enquiry under Section 85 (8) of the Act, one fails to see what more remains to be decided in so far as the claim is concerned in proceedings under Section 85 (5) of the Act, which is after all the next step after an order is passed under Section 85 (8) of the Act. That is why it appears to me, M.P. Menon, J. in the earlier C. R. P. directed the Taluk Land Board to go only into the limited question referred to above. I therefore find that the Taluk Land Board has exceeded the direction given in the earlier order in coming to a conclusion that the tenancy set up is true.