State of Kerala v. V. Kadeeja Umma and T.K. Laila

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/26TH ASWINA 1934** **CRP.No. 1422 of 2000 (F) ------------------------** ## **CR.293/1973/B of TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRUR, DATED 20-5-99.** **REVISION PETITIONER(S): ----------------------** **STATE OF KERALA.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUSHEELA BHATT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. V.KADEEJA UMMA, W/O LATE SRI.T.K.MOHAMMED, ALIAS PAPPU, P.O. PAIN KANNUR, KATTUPPARUTHY VILLAGE.** **2. T.K.LAILA, D/O T.K.MOHAMMED ALIAS PAPPU, PAIN KANNUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.R.SREEHARI** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **amk** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J** **--------------------------------------------------** C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of October, 2012. ## O R D E R The state is in revision before this court challenging the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Tirur in CR.No.293/73/B dated 20-05-1999. Proceedings were taken by the Taluk Land Board against the statutory family of Late T.K.Bappu alias Mohamed. Eventually, the matter having reached back to the Taluk Land Board as per the order in C.R.P.No.2479/1975, it was taken up. Sri.T.K.Bappu had expired and this being the reason for it having been taken up afresh his legal heirs were issued notice. On receipt of their objections as also the draft statement, the matter was considered and the detailed order was passed on 9-7-1998, directing surrender of 24.66 acres ## C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 2 of land. The state filed a revision before this Court, which was numbered as C.R.P.No.2498/1999. 2. However, the same was dismissed, since it was delayed and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that the order of the Tribunal arising on the facts and circumstances of the case was based on evidence and are finding of facts, which are unassailable in revision. 3. The respondents herein are the wife and daughter of the deceased T.K.Bappu. They along with other legal heirs had approached this Court in an earlier Civil Revision Petition numbered as C.R.P.No.2479/1975. In that it was contended that before the proceedings could be completed, the declarant T.K.Bappu had expired. In the ## C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 3 original statement filed by T.K.Bappu, he had offered to surrender 47.49 acres of land as surplus land. The 5[th] respondent, who is the son of T.K.Bappu gave a statement to the authorised officer mentioning that some of the lands offered earlier were in the possession of others and the balance amounting to 45.21 acres could be surrendered. The authorised officer submitted a report and pending the determination of the extent 44.42 acres was directed to be taken possession of under Section 86(5). 4. Before the High Court, it was argued that the declarant having died, the legal heirs have to ascertain and find out the actual extent of the properties that belonged to him and hence sought for deferring the assumption of possession by the Taluk Land Board. This Court refused to ## C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 4 do so. This Court specifically found that the Taluk Land Board could take possession of the properties and recorded the fact that, in fact it was already done by the Taluk Land Board. Hence an interference with the order was refused. While dismissing the revision, it was directed that the vesting of the title to the properties taken possession of will be deferred till the passing of the final order in the case; after hearing the objections of the parties. The Taluk Land Board was directed to expedite the issue. It was on this remand that the final order dated 9-7-1998 was passed by the Taluk Land Board. 5. In the order passed as a consequence of the directions in Civil Revision Petition, what was directed to be surrendered is only 24.66 acres. The respondents ## C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 5 suffered the order and chose not to challenge the same. They adopted the measure of approaching the Taluk Land Board under Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). This Court refrains from making any comments on the procedure adopted. 6. After the passing of the order dated 9-7-1998, the respondents herein approached the Taluk Land Board with two separate petitions, dated 25-8-1998, for exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 136A of the Rules. Rule 136A is the power conferred on the Land Tribunal, Taluk Land Board, etc. to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes and errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. The contours of the jurisdiction conferred for rectification of ## C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 6 mistakes has been laid down succinctly in _**Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P**_ ((2007) 10 VST 751 (S.C)). What is contemplated is mere correction of errors and not re-adjudication of issues. Rectification cannot lead to substitution of earlier orders. The provision which came up for consideration in the above case was one in which mistakes apparent on the face of the record could be rectified. Rule 136A postulates correction of only clerical or arithmetical mistakes and any error arising from an accidental slip or omission. That, obviously was not the exercise undertaken by the Taluk Land Board in the instant case. 7. On going through the impugned order, it is found that exercising jurisdiction under Rule 136A, the ## C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 7 Taluk Land Board reopened the entire matter. Fresh report was called for from the authorised officer. On the premise that it is correcting an obvious mistake or error, the Taluk Land Board ventured into a re-adjudication of the entire issue. The lands already held to be in the possession of the land holders were found to be not in their possession. The records or rather orders of other cases were perused to find that the land which was held to be in the possession of the petitioners were infact surrendered in other ceiling cases. Assignments were taken note of and Tribunal records in other cases were perused to exempt lands. The Land Tribunal necessarily exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on it. It could not have entered into a re-adjudication of the issues settled by order dated 9-7-1998. The impugned order C.R.P.No.1422 OF 2000 8 is vitiated by clear lack of jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition hence is allowed, setting aside the orders of the Taluk Land Board. **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** amk **//True Copy//** **P.A to Judge**