IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 1451 of 2008 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6304/2005 Dated 18/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- P.K. MOOSA, S/O ISMAIL, REHMAT HOUSE, PERINGAVU, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A. K. Basheer J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No.1451 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009. Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant is stated to be one of the legal heirs of deceased P.K.Ismail who was the declarant in a Ceiling Case (C.R.No.751 of 1973) on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Ernad, initiated under Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for determination of excess land in the possession of the declarant. 2. Though initially the Land Board found that an extent of 12.62 acres of land had to be surrendered as excess land, later the order was revised in June 1979. The excess land to be surrendered by the declarant was found to be only 9.22 acres. But in the meanwhile 12.62 acres had already been taken possession of in terms of the earlier order. Therefore 3.40 acres of land was re- conveyed. It appears that the declarant had passed away in the meanwhile. His legal representatives had unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the Land Board before this Court in several proceedings. 3. After a lapse of about 25 years, Ext.P2 application was filed by the appellant before the Taluk Land Board under Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules 1970 (for short the Rules), contending inter alia that certain clerical or WA.1451/2008. : 2 : arithmetical mistakes had crept in, in the orders passed by the Board and therefore they were liable to be corrected. According to the appellant, his family had been compelled to surrender 2.54 acres in excess of what actually was liable to be surrendered. He therefore payed that the earlier order passed by the Taluk Land Board may be revised and the mistakes may be corrected. It was in the above circumstances that the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of Ext.P2 application filed under Rule 136A of the Rules. 4. The learned single Judge after noticing the fact that the attempt of the appellant was to re-open an issue which had become final way back in 1979, was guilty of delay and laches. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 5. As has been noticed already, final determination of the excess land to be surrendered by the deceased declarant had become final in 1979. Though initially 12.62 acres of land was ordered to be surrendered as excess, the Taluk Land Board had passed a revised order reducing the extent to 9.22. acres. Several writ petitions and revision petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the deceased declarant before this Court thereafter. It is not necessary to refer to any of them. Suffice it to say that all the attempts made by the legal heirs including the appellant in this WA.1451/2008. : 3 : regard, had ended in failure. In the meanwhile, the excess land surrendered by the declarant's family had been distributed among the landless people. 6. As rightly noticed by the learned single Judge, Ext.P2 application was filed by the appellant in August 2004 alleging that there were certain clerical or arithmetic mistake in computation of the excess land. Appellant contended that under Rule 136A of the Rules such mistakes were liable to be corrected at any time. The seemingly innocuous prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to the Taluk Land Board to “dispose of” Ext.P2 application. 7. The obvious attempt of the appellant is to re-open an issue which had become final long time ago. More importantly, the land surrendered by the family of the declarant including the appellant, had already been distributed among the landless people. Appellant contends that there was error in computation of the land ordered to be surrendered. He further claims that he had filed Ext.P2 application on behalf of the other legal heirs of the declarant. 8. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. Appellant cannot be allowed to re-open an issue which had been settled way back in 1979, in the guise of correction of mistake as provided under Section 136 A of the WA.1451/2008. : 4 : Rules. A perusal of Ext.P2 will undoubtedly show that the attempt of the appellant is to re-agitate the entire matter and not a so called correction of a clerical or arithmetic mistake, which alone is contemplated under the said rule. The prayer made by the appellant cannot be entertained in any view of the matter. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer Judge an.