STATE OF KERALA Vs. JOSEPH ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent is the assessee in T.L.B. 1160/KTD of the Taluk Land Board, Kuttanad. Originally by order dated 30-11-1976 the ceiling case was dropped on the ground that the assessee has no excess land. That was by excluding 17 acres 20 cents covered by three gift deeds of 30-12-1969 from his account as on 1-1-1970. Realising that the exclusion was not legal, the order was re-opened under S.85(9). Respondents 2 and 3 are the donees and respondents 4 and S are the other interested persons. After considering their objections also, the impugned order was passed on 16-11-1981. 12 acres 79 cents covered by two gift deeds, on the basis of which purchase certificates were obtained, were again excluded. Exclusion of 4 acres 30 cents by one gift deed which did not mature into purchase certificate was revoked on the ground that it ia not a valid document. After excluding 12 acres 79 cents the land held by the assessee as on 1-1-1970 was taken to be 18 acres 89 cents, out of it, 40 cents was exempted under S.81(1). Ceiling limit was fixed at 15 acres. Balance 3 acres 49 cents was ordered to be surrendered.

(2.) First respondent took up the matter in C.R.P. No. 791 of 1982 impleading the State as the respondent. The order was challenged in that revision only on two grounds (1) the re-opening under S.85(9) and the rejection of one gift for 4 acres 30 cents as invalid were not proper, and (2) option was not given to the assessee. Exclusion of 12 acres 79 cents covered by the two gift deeds in favour of respondents 2 and 3 on the basis of which they obtained purchase certificates were not challenged and respondents 2 and 3 were not made parties also. That revision petition was dismissed.

(3.) The present revision is by the State and the challenge is against the exclusion of 12 acres 79 cents covered by the two gift deeds of 1969 in favour of respondents 2 and 3. On behalf of the third respondent it was argued that when C.R.P. 791 of 1982 was dismissed it amounts to confirmation of the order of the Taluk Land Board and that the order has thus become merged in the revisional order of this Court. Since the order of the Taluk Land Board is thus not in existence as it was superseded by and merged in the order of this Court, it was pointed out that a further revision against the order of the Taluk Land Board will not lie.