K AMBUNHI Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the final order passed against the 4th respondent herein, the Tahsildar went to the property to take surrender of possession, but found that about 5 acres in Sy. No 146/1 of Panathady village is in the possession of the revision petitioner. He submitted a report accordingly to the Taluk Land Board which issued a notice to him calling upon him to produce his documents of title to the property. Thereupon the revision petitioner filed an application setting forth his claim to this piece of land. The claim was rejected by the Taluk Land Board by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

(2.) When once a final order is passed under sub-s.(5) or (7) of S.85 of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short the 'Act'), it can be set aside or reopened only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Act provides only three methods to set aside the final order and to reopen the proceedings. These are provided by sub-s.(8) and sub-s.(9) of S.85 and S.103 of the Act. No other provision of the Act or the Rules has been brought to my notice enabling the Taluk Land Board to adjudicate a claim put forward by a person after a final order is passed. At the same time the Taluk Land Board cannot be helpless when it finds that a person other than the person involved in the ceiling case is seen to be in possession of the land involved in the ceiling case. The ceiling rules provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants of the land even by force Whether the possession of a person is authorised or not is a matter for the Taluk Land Board to decide. Of course it is open to the Taluk Land Board to issue notice to that person asking him to show whether his possession is authorised or not. When he responds to such a notice, that response has to be treated as an application under sub-s.(8) of S.85 of the Act and dealt with accordingly. If he establishes a prima facie case and satisfies the other conditions of sub-s.(8) of S.85, the Taluk Land Board has to set aside the final order to that extent and adjudicate on his claim under the provisions of sub-s.(5) or (7) of S.85 as the case may be and pass a revised final order. If, however, he fails to establish a prima facie case, his application has to be dismissed and he has to be treated as a person in unauthorised occupation of the land involved in the ceiling case and dealt with accordingly.

(3.) The error committed by the Taluk Land Board consists in not treating the application filed by the revision petitioner as one under sub-s.(8) of S.85 of the Act. That error has to be rectified by the Taluk Land Board For that purpose the case has to go back.