WAHAB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges Ext. P2 order of the 2nd respondent, the Taluk Land Board, Manjeri dated 29.5.1992 reopening the ceiling case in exercise of power under S.85(9 A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short the Act). Ext. P1 is the order of the 2nd respondent passed under S.85(5)(c) of the Act holding that the declarant was not liable to surrender any surplus land. The above order was sought to be reviewed. By Ext. P2 the 2nd respondent decided to reopen the case after setting aside the Ext. P1 order and to proceed with the ceiling case afresh.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of sub-s. (9A) of S.85 of the Act have not been established in this case. Sub-s. (9A) is reproduced hereunder:

(3.) In the present case what Ext. P2 order indicate is that an extent of 55.60 1/2 acres of land comprised in R.S. No. 98C of Edakkara Village is exempted being private forest. The further statement in Ext. P2 The aforesaid extent is soon alienated to strangers and they were in possession does not appear to be correct. The alleged alienation was made even prior to the passing of Ext. P1 order but the Taluk Land Board proceeded on the basis that it was effected after the Ext. P1 order. Even assuming the said observation of the Taluk Land Board is correct, that will not satisfy the requirements to be complied with before invoking the power under S.85(9A). What is primarily to be established under sub-s. (9A) is that there was failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession. The Ext. P2 does not indicate any material to show to the effect that there was failure to produce any relevant data or material. No doubt such material has to be disclosed in the impugned order. The basis of taking action under sub-s. (9A) is fresh material and not the material already on record. What is available as per Ext. P2 is the same material on record when Ext. P1 order was passed by the Taluk Land Board. In the absence of any fresh material constituting failure to produce the relevant data, it cannot be said any material has been brought before the Board for invoking the powers under S.85(9A). The Taluk Land Board is not authorised under sub-s. (9A) to review a case on the basis of same materials available before the Board when Ext. P1 order was passed. If the review is proposed on the same material, it can only be a change of opinion or an error of judgment. This is not a reason to review an earlier decision of the Board invoking the provisions under sub-s. (9A).