LexBABY versus TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A BABY v. TRA V ANCORE DEV ASWOM BOARD AND ORS. NOVEMBER 6, 1998 B [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963: Section 103. Revision-Power of High Court-Scope of-&pression "has either C decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law"-Meaning of- Question whether appellant was cultivating tenant-Non consideration of relevant document including judicial proceedings by Tribunal-Held, Tribunal neither decided any question of law erroneously nor failed to decide any question of law-But High Court set aside the orders of Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution-Held, no interference was called for under Article D 136-Power of High Court under Article 227 is in addition to the powers of revision under section 103-Finding of fact arrived at by non consideration of relevant documents can be quashed by High Court under Article 227. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227. E High Court-Supervisory jurisdiction-Tribunal-Finding of fact arrived at-Non-consideration of relevant documents-High Court can quash such a finding-Such power of High Court is in addition to power of revision. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5502- F 5504 of 1998. G H From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.97 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 599-601 of 1990. P.S. Poti and Ms. Malini Poduval for Appellant. P. Krishnamoorthy and K. Sukumaran, Ms. V. Mohana, Ms.S. Karthika, Jayanathan, John Mathew, Ms. Baby Krishnan and K.M.K. Nair for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 552 BABY v. TRA VANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD 553 Leave granted. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court in revision given under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as A the Act). The High Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 20th Dec., 1989 which affirmed the order of the Land Tribunal dated 24th Nov., 1980. The dispute between the parties before the Tribunal was as B to whether the appellant before us was the cultivating tenant. A limited notice was issued in these appeals as to whether the High Court had acted within its jurisdiction under Section I 03 of the Act. That Section reads as under: "103, Revision by High Court :- (1) Any person aggrieved by - (i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal; or (ii) any final order passed by the Land Board Under this Act; or (iii) any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act, c D may within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law." E Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the Taluk Land Board and the Appellate Authority have not failed to decide any question of law nor could it be said that any such question was erroneously decided. The High Court had interfered with the order of the tribunals on the ground that several material documents including judicial proceedings were not adverted F to by the tribunals. The High Court held that the legal effect of these documents was not considered by the tribunals. On those grounds, it was argued, the High Court was not entitled to interfere under Section 103 of the Act. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that if certain documents were not considered or their legal effect was not taken into consideration, still that did G not amount to an erroneous decision of a question of law, nor failure to decide a question of law. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the question of existence of tenancy was a question of fact and if certain documents which were relevant in that connection were not taken into consideration it could not be said that the question of law was erroneously decided or was not decided. H 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A We find sufficient force in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant in regard to the meaning of the words "has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law". On the facts of the present case learned senior counsel is justified in submitting that the lower tribunals had neither decided any question of law erroneously nor failed to decide any question of law. Mere non-co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.