TALUK LAND BOARD Vs. SREEKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O. P. No. 3188 of 1978. The relevant facts necessary for a disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows: The Taluk Land Board, Chittur, made an order under S.85(5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act I of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the 22nd April, 1975 as per Ext. P1. On the 29th April, 1978 proceedings were initiated under S.85A of the Act by the Taluk Land Board and notice was issued as per Ext. P2 calling upon the respondent to show cause why the order made as per Ext. P1 should not be set aside and an appropriate order made. The respondent filed his objections on the 11th May, 1978 and the Taluk Land Board passed an order on 12th May, 1978 as per Ext. P4 under S.85(9) of the Act. By the said order, objections of the respondent to the maintainability of the proceedings were overruled, the order Ext. P1 was set aside and a fresh draft statement was issued. The matter is yet to be heard and finally decided on merits. The respondents challenged Ext. P4 order in O. P. No. 3188 of 1978 and took the stand that the Taluk Land Board had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S.85(9) of the Act as it has done in this case on the 29th April, 1978. The learned single Judge accepted this contention of the respondent. He has held that the order under S.85(5) having been passed on 22nd April 1975 it was governed by the period of limitation prescribed by S.85(9) second proviso. The said proviso provides that the Taluk Land Board shall not initiate proceedings under sub-s.(9) of S.85 after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sought to be set aside, which has become final. The learned single Judge took the view that the final order having been made under S.85(5) on 22nd April, 1975 proceedings under S.85(9) could not be initiated after three years from 22-4-75. As admittedly the power of initiation of proceedings was exercised in this case on 29th April, 1978, the learned single Judge has held that the Taluk Land Board had no jurisdiction to take action to initiate proceedings on that date. Though the transitory provisions of S.4 of Act 13 of 1978 were pressed into service, the learned single Judge took the view that the same cannot have the effect of re-opening the orders which have become final by the operation of the prescribed period of limitation of three years. It is the said order that is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Taluk Land Board and the State Government is that the Taluk Land Board had jurisdiction on 29-4-1978 to initiate proceedings under sub-s.(9) of S.85 of the Act having regard to the transitory provisions of S.4 of Act 13 of 1978.

(3.) Before we deal with the principal contention urged in this case it is necessary to advert to the relevant statutory provisions and the legislative history.