BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Taluk Land Board,Alathur,dated 28 -1 -1988.The Taluk Land Board by its order dated 31 -5 -1976 directed the revision petitioner to surrender 6.35 acres of land.Pursuant to the order he surrendered that extent inclusive of 16 cents in Sy.No.318/4.Subsequently one Sulochana and Vasu claimed right over certain properties.The claim petition put in by Vasu was rejected.However the claim of Sulochana was upheld as regards 17 cents in Sy.No.292B -7A.While allowing the claim petition of Sulochana the Taluk Land Board stumbled upon a mistake it had committed in its earlier order.As per the earlier order declarant was allowed exemption in respect of 17 cents in Sy.No.318/4.The declarant had opted to surrender the very same property for which he had obtained exemption.This was a mistake but the same was not noticed by the Taluk Land Board.When the Taluk Land Board reopened its order under S.85(8)of the Act it has chosen to correct its earlier mistake and then ordered the declarant to surrender equal extent of land from some other survey numbers.This is being challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) THE Taluk Land Board was not justified in invoking S.85(8)of the Act to correct its earlier mistake.When an order passed by the Taluk Land Board is revised under S.85(8)of the Act the original order can be interfered with only to the extent necessary for the purpose of considering the claim petition.This Court in Ayyappan Pillai v.Taluk Land Board(1981 KLT SN 145 - - Page 79)held: "Sub -s.( 8)of S.85 does not mention the setting aside of the order in its entirety.On the other hand,what it says is that the order to be set aside is the order determining the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered.The written order of the Taluk Land Board must incorporate decisions on all disputed contentions and also determined the extent and identity of land to be surrendered;while those decisions lead to the determination of extent and identity of land to be surrendered,they cannot be equated with such determination.If this be the correct understanding of the express order,setting aside of that order cannot lead to the setting aside or wiping out of all the decisions or conclusions arrived at by the Taluk Land Board.All those decisions and conclusions will stand,except those which have a bearing on the claim urged by the applicant under S.85(8)of the Act,at whose instance the order has been set aside.The other conclusions,which can possibly have no impact on the claim put forward by the claimant,will not be wiped out by the order being set aside at the instance of a claimant.Such decisions and conclusions will stand.The declarant has no right to put forward any contention unrelated to the claim put forward by the applicant." Moreover,the first order of the Taluk Land B6ard was challenged by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2801 of 1976 and it merged with the order in C.R.P.Therefore,the Taluk Land Board was not justified in revising this order under S.85(8)of the Act.

(3.) THE Taluk Land Board had no jurisdiction to revise its earlier order while allowing the claim petition of Sulochana.The impugned order is not sustainable.The order passed by the Taluk Land Board dated 28 -1 -1988 is set aside.The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.