The State of Kerala challenges the order of the Taluk Land Board whereunder the extent of the lands to be surrendered as in excess by the declarant has been drastically reduced. The respondents who are the legal heirs of the declarant have now been directed to surrender 1.39 acres as in excess as against 26.59 acres earlier found. The revision petitioner points out that the earlier orders of the Taluk Land Board have been affirmed successively by this Court and the Supreme Court. The orders in C.R.P.Nos.3511/1983, 3514/1983 and 3054/1984, SLP (C) No.2394/1990 and C.R.P.No.2332/1990 are relied on to contend that extent of excess lands has become final. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the Taluk Land Board cannot go behind the earlier concluded orders and drastically reduce the extent of lands as in excess of the ceiling limit. 2. The legal heirs of the declarant justify the order of the Taluk Land Board asserting that a reduction in the extent of excess lands was warranted in the peculiar facts of the case. A vast difference between the extent included in the account and actually available on ground was noticed only when the excess lands were being assumed possession of. This prompted the legal heirs to file a petition before the Taluk Land Board along with a detailed survey sketch whereupon a fresh report of the authorised officer was called for. The Taluk Land Board was convinced that an imaginary extent has been included in the account of the declarant warranting the reduction of excess lands.
3. I heard Mrs.Susheela R. Bhat, Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr.T.Krishnanunni, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent.
4. It may at first blush appear that the action of the Taluk Land Board is high handed in reducing the extent of surrenderable lands in the wake of the earlier orders which had become final. Is the declarant or his legal heirs helpless in a situation when it is realised that a discrepancy exists between the extent included and available ? Is the Taluk Land Board handicapped in reducing the extent of excess lands to be surrendered in view of its earlier orders which had become final by the principles of res judicata ? I am afraid that the contours of the power of the Taluk Land Board under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ['the Act' for short] are not properly comprehended.
5. It is true that the Taluk Land Board shall not be bound to accept an option statement filed indicating the choice of the lands to be surrendered by the declarant. The Taluk Land Board is free to reject the option statement if it has reason to believe that the person whose land is indicated to be surrendered has no good title to it. Such vast powers of the Taluk Land Board can be seen from Section 85(6)(A) of the Act whereas Section 85 (6)(B) and Section 85(6)(C) speak of other grounds on which the option statement could be rejected. But is it fair for the Taluk Land Board to reject the option statement for the reason that the lands opted though included in the account are not available on ground ? Certainly not since the Taluk Land Board has a concomitant duty to correct the extent of the lands to be included in the account by virtue of Rule 136 A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970. The jurisdiction is abundant under the said Rule to correct any clerical or arithematical mistake in the orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time. The Taluk Land Board should bear in mind that the power under Section 85 (6)(A) of the Act cannot be divorced from the duty under Rule 136 A of the Tenancy Rules.
6. The grievance of the legal heirs of the declarant about the vast difference between the extent of the lands included in the account and available on ground is not without substance. The Taluk Land Board in passing the impugned order had relied on the report dated 19.7.2005 of the authorised officer. The report was called for when a petition was filed by the legal heirs of the declarant producing along with it a copy of the survey sketch of the lands. (The present report of the authorised officer is of course in total variance with the earlier reports dated 25.11.1976 and 14.1.1989 of the authorised officer) It is also not clear from the impugned order as to whether the Taluk Land Board has invoked the power under Section 85(6) or Section 85(9A) of the Act to re-open the case. Interest of justice would be met by permitting the legal heirs of the declarant to file a fresh option statement within a period of one month for the Taluk Land Board to proceed as above. The Taluk Land Board is free to call for another report from the authorised officer and fix the identity of the excess lands even reducing the extent if necessary.
7. I may also incidentally state that the principles of res judicata would not apply with all vigour in the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board as in the Land Tribunal. Section 108 A of the Act makes Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings before the Land Tribunal and not to the Taluk Land Board. Section 108 A of the Act is as follows:-
108A. Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure to apply to proceedings before Land Tribunal:- The provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), shall, so far as may be, apply to proceedings before the Land Tribunal. (emphasis supplied) The Legislature has consciously omitted the Taluk Land Board from the purview of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only to meet several contingencies including the one in hand. After all the endeavour is to see that no lands in excess of the ceiling area shall be held by the declarant or his legal heirs under Section 83 of the Act. The fact that the Taluk Land Board had directed a larger extent to be surrendered earlier is not a fetter to reduce the extent of lands later. But that does not however mean that issues can be re-agitated again and again before the Taluk Land Board attributing no finality to its orders passed earlier.
8. The impugned order is set aside for the limited purpose of enabling the legal heirs of the declarant to file an option statement indicating the choice of the lands to be surrendered. The Taluk Land Board in the process of passing orders thereon can verify whether there is vast difference between the extent included and available on ground. The Taluk Land Board is free to reduce the surrenderable extent if it finds that non existent lands have been included in the account of the declarant. All other findings in the earlier orders are affirmed and the Taluk Land Board shall pass orders on the option statement within a period of four months.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE nj.