IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 12820 of 1999(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. K. NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT CHANGAM ESTATE, VENNAMADA P.O., KOZHILAPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB A.MUNDACKAL SRI.B.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR. 5. P.R. DANAVAN, PARAMBATHERIL HOUSE, MOONGILMEDA KALAM, VANNAMADA P.O., CHITTUR. 6. SMT. JANAKI AMMA, W/O. LATE APPUCHAMI GOUNDAR, MALATHI NIVAS, ALIYAR, POLLACHI DIST. 7. VEERAN, W/O. ARAN, MUMKEELMADA, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, VANNAMADA P.O., ERUTHEMPATHY PANCHAYAT, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 8. PAPPATHY, W/O. RAJENDRAN, DO. DO. 9. CHANDRIKA, W/O. RANKAN, DO. DO. 10. SARASWATHY, W/O. AMARAVEL, DO. DO. 11. CHINNAL, W/O. KITTUCHAMY, DO. DO. 12. MELUCHAMI, S/O. THANNASI, DO. DO. 13. MUTHULAKSHMI, W/O. RANKASWAMY, DO. DO. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 7 TO 13 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 26-7-1999 IN C.M.P. 22938/1999. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE APPEARING ALONG WITH SMT.GIRIJA BALARAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 12820/1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN C.C.1088/73. EXT.P2 COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE. EXT.P3 ORDER IN I.A.NO. 19/98 IN C.C. 1088/73 DT. 17-5-1999. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------ EXT.R5(a) COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT. 31-7-1989. EXT.R5(b) ORDER IN C.R.P.2207/89 DT. 25-10-1989. EXT.R5(c) ORDER IN C.R.P.2216/89. EXT.R5(d) JUDGMENT IN O.P.8644/92. EXT.R5(e) PROCEEDINGS DT. 4-12-1995 EXT.R5(f) ORDER IN C.R.P. 257/96. EXT.R5(g) JUDGMENT IN SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 2139 & 2141/97. [TRUE COPY] P..S TO JUDGE,. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 12820 of 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed Ext. P1 application purportedly under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for re-opening his ceiling case. He filed O.P.No.2246/1998 before this Court for a direction to the Taluk Land Board to dispose of Ext. P1 application. This Court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider Ext. P1 application and pass orders thereon. The Taluk Land Board consisting of seven members considered Ext. P1 application. Six members were in favour of re-opening and the Chairman was against. Despite the majority view, the Chairman passed an order rejecting the application for re-opening on two grounds. The first was that Section 85(9A) could not be invoked by party to a ceiling case, but the Section only vests the Taluk Land Board with the power to initiate suo motu action if the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Secondly, that power had to be invoked within the limited period prescribed therein and Ext. P1 application was filed beyond that period. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that in view of Rule 103A of the Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules, the Taluk Land Board has to take decisions by majority. According to the petitioner, since six members had favoured re-opening of the case, the Chairman had no jurisdiction to decide not to re-open the case. 3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Despite the technical contention raised by the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner because Ext. P1 application itself was not maintainable. Section 85(9A) does not confer any right on any party to a ceiling case to file an O.P. No. 12820/1999 -: 2 :- application for re-opening of the ceiling case. It is a power conferred on the Taluk Land Board to suo motu re-open a ceiling case, if the specific conditions therein are satisfied. Further, a limitation of three years is prescribed there. Admittedly, Ext. P1 application was filed beyond the period so prescribed. When the application itself was not maintainable, it is not necessary to consider the technical contention of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/