MYLAN Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD CHITTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Original Petition is whether an order passed by the Taluk Land Board allowing an application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act could be reviewed by the Taluk Land Board on the ground that at the time when the Taluk Land Board passed the order, the period for which it was constituted was over. Ketcha Boyan, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, was the cultivating tenant in respect of 8.56 acres of land under Subbayya Gownder. Ceiling case was initiated against Subbayya Gownder on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur. Ketcha O.P. No. 23042 of 1999 Decided on Boyan filed a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The Taluk Land Board rejected the claim. Ketcha Boyan challenged that order in C.R.P. No. 2731 of 1979 was disposed of on 30-07-1981.

(2.) Ketcha Boyan had filed an application under Section 72B of the Act before the Land Tribunal for the purchase of right, title and interest of the land lord in respect of the lands. Land Tribunal had dismissed that application. Ketcha Boyan filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Ketcha Boyan filed an appeal before the appellate authority. At the time when the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of on 30-07-1981, the appeal was pending before the appellate authority. The revisional court did not interfere with the dismissal of the application filed by Ketcha Boyan under section 85(8) of the Act. However, it was observed in Ext. P1 judgment in C.R.P. 2731 of 1979 that the appeal pending before the appellate authority shall be disposed of without reference to the findings of the Taluk Land Board or orders of the revisional court since primarily it is the land reforms authority which is the competent authority to adjudicate upon the plea of tenancy.

(3.) The appellate authority (Land Reforms) dismissed the appeal filed by Ketch Boyan. He challenged that judgment in C.R.P. 3729 of 1981, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration as per Ext. P2 judgment. After remand, the Land Tribunal allowed the application filed by Ketcha Boyan under Section 72B of the Act as per Ext. P3 order. Ext. P4 purchase certificate was also issued in favour of Ketch Boyan. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of Ketcha Boyan under Section 85(8) of the Act before the Taluk Land Board. Petitioner filed O.P. 1152 of 1996 for issue of a direction to the Taluk Land Board to dispose of that application under Section 85(8). The Original Petition was allowed and the Taluk Land Board was directed, as per Ext. P5 judgment, to dispose of the claim petition under section 85(8). Meanwhile, proceedings were initiated for assignment of excess land which was taken possession of in the ceiling case. Petitioner filed O.P. 1964 of 1998 which was disposed of as per Ext. P7 judgment directing the Taluk Land Board to dispose of the claim petition filed by Ketcha Boyan. The Taluk Land Board considered the application and passed Ext. P8 order dated 28-11-1998 allowing the application under Section 85(8) filed by the petitioner and other legal representatives of Ketcha Boyan. The Taiuk Land Board deducted an extent of 8.56 acres from the account of the assessee, viz., Subbayya Gownder. The Tahsildar was directed to re-convey the extent of 8.56 acres of land to the petitioner and the other legal representatives of Ketcha Boyan. The land was re-conveyed to the petitioner in compliance with Ext. P8 order and basic tax was paid by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext. P9. On 31-07-1999, Ext. P10 notice was issued by the Taluk Land Board seeking to re-open and review Ext. P8 order and directing the petitioner to appear on 15-09-1999. It is stated in Ext. P10 that on 28-11-1998 when Ext. P8 order was passed, the Taluk Land Board which was re-constituted was not in existence and therefore the order dated 28-11-1998 when Ex. P8 order was passed, the Taluk Land Board which was re-constituted was not in existence and therefore the order dated 28-11-1998 has no legal validity. Ext. P10 notice is under challenge in this Original Petition.