LEELAVATHY AMMA Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner challenges the order of the Taluk Land Board, Ernad in C.C. No. CR. 350/73/C7 dated 24-12-1987. The Taluk Land Board by an earlier order dated 28-8-1974 directed the declarant to surrender 88 cents of land as excess land. The declarant surrendered the aforesaid extent of property. Subsequently the Taluk Land Board re-opened the case under S.85(9) of the Act and the case was posted for hearing on 16-1-1978. In the meanwhile declarant died and his wife (revision petitioner) was impleaded and the proceedings continued. The Taluk Land Board passed the impugned order on 24-12-1987.

(2.) The question to be considered is whether the Taluk Land Board was entitled to initiate proceedings under S.85(9) ignoring the period of limitation S.85(9) empowers the Taluk Land Board to set aside an order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7). If the Taluk Land Board is satisfied that the extent of lands surrendered or assumed from a person under S.86 is less than the extent of land which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of the Act it can certainly set aside its own order, The Taluk Land Board can set aside its own order if it is satisfied that the lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person are not lawfully owned or held by him. In a case where a person was found not liable to surrender any land is subsequently found owning or holding lands in excess of the ceiling area, the Taluk Land Board can set aside its order. First proviso to S.85(9) makes it incumbent upon the Taluk Land Board to bear the affected parties before taking any action under S.85(9) of the Act. Second proviso enacts a statutory bar for initiating action by the Taluk Land Board under S.85(9). It stipulates the period of limitation as three years.

(3.) The Taluk Land Board held that though the case was posted on 18-3-1978 no objection was filed by the revision petitioner. The failure to file objection to any action without jurisdiction cannot cure the illegality. As there is statutory bar to re-open the proceedings under S.85(9) the Taluk Land Board can initiate action only within the period fixed statutorily. The contention that the revision petitioner did not object to the initiation of the proceedings on the ground of limitation and hence the Taluk Land Board was justified in passing the impugned order is not tenable. By admission of parties the Taluk Land Board cannot get jurisdiction to decide a matter which is barred by limitation. Admission of parties cannot affect the jurisdiction of Courts or Tribunals to decide a point of limitation. Admission of facts will certainly bind the parties. But there cannot be any admission on a point of law. Admission on a point of law cannot estop the party from raising the legal issue before a statutory authority or court. It is well settled legal position that there can be no estoppel against a statute. A person cannot be debarred of his right to plead limitation on the ground that by acquiescence or admission be failed to raise it initially. As the Taluk Land Board lacked jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under S.85(9) beyond the statutory period fixed under the second proviso the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground that the revision petitioner did not raise plea of limitation before the Taluk Land Board.