CHANDUKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUR learned brother Bhaskaran J,held by the judgment under appeal that the action taken by the Taluk Land Board.South Wynad by issue of Ext.P4 order dated 22 -2 -1980 under S.85(9)of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was competent as the power was invoked by the Board in time.The appellant before us who was the petitioner before the learned single Judge challenges the above said order which reopened the earlier order of the Taluk Land Board,Ext.P1,holding that the petitioner had no excess land to surrender.By reason of the order Ext.P4 so reopening the earlier order,the question of the ceiling had to be determined afresh in accordance with S.85(9)of the Act.The proceedings of the Board are challenged on the premises that the power of the Taluk Land Board to reopen its earlier order holding that there was no excess land for surrender must be exercised within a period of one year from the date of commencement of Act 13 of 1978,namely,one year from 1 -10 -1977 and in as much as it was sought to be reopened in this case long after the period of one year it was not competent.The learned single Judge did not agree with the construction put on the transitory provision in S.4 of the Kerala Land Reforms(Amendment)Act 13 of 1978 by the petitioner and found that the proceedings were in time.In this Writ Appeal learned counsel Sri.S.Narayanan Poti,appearing for the appellant challenges this decision,According to counsel the court should have found that the action taken in this case was beyond the time provided by law.Learned counsel raised a further question which is not seen to have been raised before the learned single Judge.It is said by counsel that S.101(4)of the Act provides for finality of orders on question relating to exemption claimed under S.81.That being so,when once on the question of exemption the Board has spoken,there can be no reopening by the Board and what therefore it purported to do by Ext.P4 order would be against the operation of the rule of finality contemplated under S.101(4)of the Act.The answer to this contention so raised by counsel is to be found in a decision of a Division Bench of this Court.But learned counsel canvasses the correctness of that decision before us in an attempt to persuade us to refer that question to a Full Bench of this Court,

(2.) NOW we will state the facts of the case in a little more detail though only to the extent necessary for determining the questions arising in this appeal.

(3.) IT may be necessary to notice the legislative history of the provision with which we are concerned in this case.