Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs L/H Michael Manilla Van Ingen on 30 July, 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/20TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
CRP.No. 3003 of 2000 (B)
------------------------
TLB.1077/1973 of THE TALUK LAND BOARD,MANANTHAVADY DATED 30.07.1999.
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
STATE OF KERALA
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
L/H MICHAEL MANILLA VAN INGEN,
BRAHMAGIRI 'B' ESTATE, THIRUNELLY
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.)
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN
BY ADV. SMT.SAVITHA GANAPATHIYATAN
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J
-----------------------------------
C.R.P No. 3003 of 2000
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2012
O R D E R
The above Civil Revision Petition is one, filed by the State against an order dated 13.07.1999 of the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady in TLB. 1077/1973. The ceiling proceeding was in pursuance of a return filed by a partnership firm consisting of two partners by name, Botha Van Ingen and Michael Van Ingen and with respect to Brahmagiri 'B' Estate. The proceedings were initially concluded by order dated 27.02.1975 finding that, there was no surplus land to be surrendered. Subsequently, proceedings were re-opened under Sec.85(9A) and an order was passed by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady on 24.11.1998, as is evident from the records. The Taluk Land Board after examination of the case found that, the ceiling area applicable to the estate, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932; termed as other person is ten standard acres of land. Finding that, after vesting under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, C.R.P No. 3003 of 2000 2 the estate was in possession of only 12.22 acres of land, the same was held to be within the ceiling limit. On the said finding, further action was dropped however, subject to the orders which were to be passed in M.F.A No. 208/1977. The Taluk Land Board felt that, if the M.F.A went in favour of the partnership firm, then the holding would exceed ceiling limit; making it liable for surrender under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents Sri M C Sen submitted that, the M.F.A filed by the partnership firm against the vesting has been dismissed and there are no further proceedings pending.
2. The reopening under Sec.85(9A) concluded with the order dated 24.11.1998. The impugned order has also been passed under the same provision on 30.07.1999. In fact, on a reading of the two orders, this Court finds that, except for the date, the order is a verbatim reproduction. It is also evidenced from the records (Vol.3 Page 9) that a notice was issued to the Manager, Brahmagiri 'B' Estate on the above lines:
C.R.P No. 3003 of 2000 3
No: L1-TLB.1077/73/Mtdy N O T I C E Sub: K.L.R Act - Ceiling case of Sri. Botha Van Ingen and (2) Michael Manilla Van Ingen - Brahmagiri 'B' Estate -
Hearing posted - informed-regarding.
Ref:- 1. Proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Manantavady, dated 24.11.1998.
2. Land Board's Lr.No. LB(B)4-23077/98 dated 27.02.1999.
------------
The term of the Taluk Land Board was already expired on 20.08.98. As such the order 1st cited passed by the Taluk Land Board on 24.11.98 has no legal validity and is null and void. Hence the Secretary, Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram, in the letter referred 2nd has directed the Taluk Land Board to pass fresh order in this case.
So please take notice that the above ceiling case is posted for hearing on 16.06.1999, Wednesday at 2 P.M. at Taluk office, Mananthavady. I therefore, request you to appear before the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady at the above said date and time, with connected records either in person or through authorised agent, failing which the case will be decided exparte on merit.
Sd/-
Chairman, Taluk Land Board, Manathavady To The Manager, Brahmagiri 'B' Estate,Kutta P.O., S.Coorg, Karnataka.
C.R.P No. 3003 of 2000 4
3. What is stated in the notice is that, the earlier order; having been passed by the Taluk Land Board whose term has expired, has to be treated as null and void. This Court has considered the question of whether review of an order passed under Sec.85(9A) is possible on the ground of the Taluk Land Board, whose term had expired had passed the order. A learned Single Judge in Mylan v. Taluk Land Board, (2008(2) KLT 814) considered the issue in detail and found that, the only provisions affording powers to the Taluk Land Board to review its order or to rehear or reopen the case already decided by it, is under sub-sections (8), (9) & (9A) of Sec.85 and under Rule 136 A. Rule 136 A deals with only correction of clerical or arithmetic mistakes in the order or errors arising therein from an accidental slip or omission. The powers under sub-section (9A) of Sec.85 having been exercised, it was held that a Taluk Land Board reconstituted under Sec.100A has no authority or jurisdiction to review or reconsider orders passed by the erstwhile Taluk Land Board and to hold that such orders are illegal or C.R.P No. 3003 of 2000 5 without jurisdiction on the ground that, the term of the erstwhile Board had expired when the order was passed. Reliance was place on the "defacto doctrine" to hold that, an order passed by the acts of the officers performed 'de facto'; within the scope of their assumed official authority; in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of officers de jure. In the circumstance, it has to be held that, the order passed reviewing the earlier order is not sustainable for reason of the review being bad in law.
Hence, the above Civil Revision Petition is closed since, the order dated 30.07.1999, impugned herein is totally without jurisdiction and the earlier order dated 24.11.1998 available in the records is the valid order passed under sub- section (9A) of Sec.85 and the same remains unchallenged.
The Civil Revision Petition is closed and the parties to suffer their respective costs subject however to the liberty of the State to challenge the earlier order, since the matter C.R.P No. 3003 of 2000 6 was being bonafide prosecuted in this revision; of course in accordance with law.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN (JUDGE)