Case: Vallapally Plantations Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Kerala

The appellant M/s Vellapally Plantations Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 owned a total extent of 130.47 acres of land. It filed a return under section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) claiming that out of the total area 125 acres was covered by rubber plantation as on 1st January, 1970, and therefore, is to be exempted for the purpose of calculation of the ceiling surplus land. The Taluk Land Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board) Kanjirapally did not accept the claim for exemption of the land since the area was not covered by plantation as on 1st April, 1964 and was converted into rubber plantation only thereafter. The Board treated the area in question as "other dry land" for the purpose of computation of ceiling surplus land. The Board by its order dated 24.2.1976 determined the ceiling surplus area to be 115.17 acres and directed the appellant to surrender the same. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 2274/1976, wherein the learned single Judge set aside the order taking the view that companies were introduced in the Act by amendment of Section 82(1)(d) by Act 35 of 1969 which came into force on January 1, 1970 and that the said date was the relevant date for calculation of the ceiling surplus area in the hands of the company. The High Court remitted the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal with the following observationsthe foregoing reasons the revision is allowed in part; the impugned order is set aside; and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in this order,m and in accordance with law. The Taluk Land Board would ascertain as to what, if any, is the extent of land covered by rubber plantation as on 1.1.1970 out of the 130.47 acres held by the revision petitioner-company, and exempt such extent also, besides the extent of 30 cents already exempted, while reckoning the extent of land held by the revision petitioner for the purpose of ceiling area. There will be no order as toBoard by a consequent order dated 18.5.1970 implementing the order of the High Court held that 125 acres being covered by rubber plantation as on 1.1.1970 the company could not be said to hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit. The proceeding wasthereafter a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court considering a similar question took the view that introduction of section 82(1)(d) in the Act w.e.f. 1.1.1970 has no impact on the applicability of section 82(4), and therefore, conversions of dry land into plantations after 1.4.1964 had to be ignored for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area even in relation to companies vide Kuruvila v. Taluk Land Board, 1980 KLT 53. The High Court placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mathew v. Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601. The resultant position was that the decision of the Single Judge in Vallapally Plantations case (supra) stoodBoard in exercise of its power under section 85(9) of the Act a notice to the company seeking re-opening of the proceeding and for re-determination of the ceiling surplus land in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Kuruvilla case (supra). The Company raised objection against the attempt at re-opening of the proceeding contending that the decision of the learned single Judge in Vallapally Plantations case (supra) had attained finality inter parties and could not be re-opened in exercise of the power under section 85(9) of the Act. The contention found favour with majority of the Board which by order dated 20.2.1982 dropped the proceeding holding that it had no jurisdiction to re-open theState challenged the said order in revision before the High Court in C.R.P. No. 562/83. Placing strong reliance on the language of section 85(9) the State contended that in view of the wide powers vested in the Board under the section there was no bar for it to exercise the said power in the case on hand even if the proceedings inter-parties had engaged the attention of the High Court and the Taluk Board had only passed a consequential order against the company carrying out the directions of the High Court in the remand order. The High Court by its judgment dated 18.10.1993 accepted the stand taken by the State, set aside the order of the Board and remitted the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law to ascertain the extent of land, if any, held by the company in excess of the ceiling limit. The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed by the company.

Reasoning:
From the statutory provisions referred to above the position is clear that in matters relating to determination of ceiling surplus land in the hands of a person the Board is vested with the power to determine all disputes and the order passed by the Board is subject to a revision petition which may be filed by any person aggrieved by the Government before the High Court.24. Considering the question regarding applicability of section 85(9) to the case in hand in the conspectus of statutory provisions we are of the view that answer to the question is in the negative. The provision in section 85(9), as we see it, is intended to enable the Board to set aside its order underA somewhat similar question arose before this Court in the case of Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) v. M.M. Krishnamurty Chetty, JT 1998(7) SC 503 . In that case about 4.81 standard acres of land belonging to the respondent were declared surplus. Ultimately the matter come to the High Court. The Learned Judge of the High Court set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Naganath Aiyer v. Authorised Officer 1984 LW 69. While the matter was pending before the authorised officer the Supreme Court reversed the aforesaid judgment in the case of Authorised Officer v. S. Naganatha, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1487 . The authorised officer decided the proceeding in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The land holder went in revision before the High Court challenging the order of the Authorised officer. A stand was taken before the High Court that the order of remand passed by the High Court directing the authorised officer to decide the dispute in respect of the ceiling area in the light of the judgment of the High Court was not challenged by the Authorised Officer before the Supreme Court and as such it had become final. In other words the Authorised Officer was bound by the order of remand passed by the High Court and it was not open to the Authorised Officer to consider the dispute in respect of the ceiling area in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court.