CHANDUKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for the quashing of ext. P-4 order of the 2nd respondent, the Taluk Land Board, South Wynad, dated 28-2-1980, setting aside Ext. P-1 order passed under S. 85 (9) of the Kerala Land reforms Act (the Act) on 15-3-1977 and ordering the reopening of the ceiling proceedings in respect of the petitioner. THE submission made by Sri. Mohankumar, the counsel tor the petitioner, is that the Taluk Land Board not having initiated the proceedings for the reopening within one year from the date of the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 13 of 1978 (the Amendment Act) which came into force on 1-10-1977, Ext. P4 order was without jurisdiction, and was liable to be quashed. In support of this contention he relied on the transitory provisions contained in S. 4 of the amendment Act which provides: "notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the Land Board or the Taluk Land board, as the case may be, may set aside any order passed by it under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be, of S. 85 of the principal Act and proceed afresh under that sub-section if it is satisfied that any person who, according to such order, was not liable to surrender any land, had owned or held, on the date of such order, land in excess of the ceiling area: Provided that the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board shall not (a ). . . (b) initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of one year from the commencement of this Act. " (emphasis supplied) THE submission made by Sri Mohankumar is that the amendment Act having come into force on 1-10-1977 the Taluk Land Board was not competent to initiate proceedings under S. 85 (9) of the Act after 30-9-1978 by which date the period of one year from the commencement of the Amendment Act expired.

(2.) IN this connection we have also to notice the provisions contained in sub-section (9) of S. 85 of the Act (as amended by the amendment Act) which provides: " (9) The Taluk Land Board may, at any time, set aside its order under subsection (5) or sub-section (7), as the case may be, and proceed afresh under that subsection if it is satisfied that (a) the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person under S. 86 is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of this Act; or (b) the lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person are not lawfully owned or held by him; or (c) in a case where a person is, according to such order, not liable to surrender any land, such person owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling area: Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not set aside any order under this subsection without giving the persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate any proceedings under this sub-section after the expiry of three years from the date on which the order sought to be set aside has become final. (emphasis supplied)

(3.) ANY order passed by the Taluk Land Board or the Land board is liable to be set aside and the liability of the landholder fixed afresh on the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board being satisfied that any of the conditions stated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (9) of S. 85 existed, provided proceedings are initiated within three years from the date of the order sought to be set aside. This would clearly be applicable to all cases whether by the order any extent of land had been ordered to be surrendered or not, inasmuch as clause (c) of sub-section (9) takes in within its ambit the type of orders for which additional provisions have been made in S. 4 of the amendment Act.