MOIDEEN KUNHI HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner was the 'assessee' in ceiling proceedings under S.85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1/64), that is one, who in the opinion of the Taluk Land Board, was in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling limit applicable to his family. In suo motu proceedings initiated under S.85(7), the Board passed an order on 16-11-81 directing him to surrender 7.45 acres of land as excess. The order was passed without hearing him because despite service of draft statement and notice fixing the date of hearing, he had failed to appear before the Board at the appointed time. Within a matter of days, however, the assessee moved an application before the Board for setting aside that order: it was his case that he was prevented by sufficient cause, form appearing before the Board on 16-11-81. Objections to the draft statement were also filed along with the above application. The Board considered the matter, found that the assessee had shown satisfactory reasons for non appearance, and set aside its "ex parte order." An order of stay was also issued, directing the Tahsildar not to take over the excess lands, pending reconsideration of the ceiling case. The objections were got enquired into, through the authorised officer and his report obtained. It is said that the matter was heard again, but in the meanwhile, the Taluk Land Board received two communications from the Land Board at Trivandrum. The first was to the effect that the Taluk Land Board bad no power either to review its own order or to stay it. The second stated that it had acted irregularly, illegally and without jurisdiction in having entertained the "application for review" and stayed further proceedings. It also directed the Taluk Land Board to enforce the earlier order, without reviewing it. And in the light of the above "instructions", the Taluk Land Board dropped all further proceedings for reconsideration, and held that its decision dated 16-11-81 would stand. It is this decision of the Taluk Land Board dated 25-3-83 which is now being sought to be revised.

(2.) Mr. Musa for the assessee raises three grounds:-

(3.) According to the learned Government Pleader, ground (i) above is concluded against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Rajagopalan v. State of Kerala ( 1977 KLT 114 ) which takes the view that only a person other than the assessee can apply under S.85(8); and this seems to be so. Mr. Musa would however submit that the decision requires reconsideration. Had this been the only question arising for decision, I would have referred the matter to a Division Bench; but as other questions are involved, it will at least be interesting to notice what Mr. Musa's contentions are, in this regard.