HOPE PLANTATIONS LTD. versus T ALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE AND ANR .

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 03-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
c 
HOPE PLANTATIONS LTD. 
v. 
T ALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE AND ANR . 
NOVEMBER 3, 1998 
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963-Section 85(9) and (9-A), (5) and (2), 
Form 1, Sections 2(44) and (3), 82, 81(3) and 83-Power of Taluk Land 
Board under Section 85(9-A) and 85(9) to review its decision-Appel/ant, 
owner of estate mainly of tea plantation-Sought exemption of specific portions 
of land under the heads (1) Tea Plantation, (2) Roads and Buildings, OJ Fuel 
D Area, and (4) Other Agricultural Land lnterspersed-Taluk Land Board 
disallowing claims under the heads 'fuel area" and "rested areas" as well 
as under "other agricultural land interspersed"-High Court, in revision, 
restoring the appellant's claim under heads (1) and (3) and remanding the 
matter on heads (2) and (4)-0n appeal by the State, held: in respect of "fuel 
area" and "rested area" order of the Taluk Land Board deserves to be 
E restored-Jn the remand proceedings, Taluk Land Board took up the question 
of "other agricultural land interspersed"-Appellant raising the claim for 
exemption of fuel area on the ground that within that area there wa.i: a pre 
1964 cardamom plantation-Appellant also reiterating its claim to exemption 
of the rested tea area on the ground of being within the tea plantation area-
F By a majority, Taluk Land Board allowing both the claims of the appellant 
and also the claims under the head 'other agricultural land interspersed'-
High Court, in revision, disallowed the claims of 'fuel area' and cardamom 
plantation' and remanded the third claim of "other agricultural land 
interspersed"-During Pendency of the appeal before this Court, Cardamom 
Board inspected the spot and confirmed the appellant's claim of cardamom 
G plantation existing prior to 1964 within the specified area-In absence of 
inclusion of such claim in the statement/return filed by the appellant in Form 
1 and in view of the dispute regarding "fuel area" and "rested tea area" 
having been determined by this Court-Held, there was no scope for any 
review by Taluk Land BoaFd under Section 85(9) or 85-A to hold that in the 
H fuel area there was cardamom plantation-Moreover, notwithstanding after 
514 
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUKLANDBOARD, PEERMADE 
515 
remand, Taluk Land Board was also vested with the power to determine the A 
"area of other agricultural land interspersed" under Section 2(44) (c), the 
Board could not hold that the area under that head exceeded as claimed by 
the appellant-Power of review was also subject to principles of res judicata 
and estoppel-Principles of res judicata and estoppel apply even to proceedings 
before the administrative authority-However, on the question of fuel area in B 
a subsequent decision a larger Bench of this Court had taken a different view 
and since the case that rested tea area was part of tea plantation had not been 
properly projected before this Court, appellant was allowed to approach the 
State Government to seek exemption under Section 81(3)-Res Judicata-
Constructive Res Judicata-Applicability-Estoppel-Administrative law-Civil 
Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 and Order 47 Rule 1 Explanation-Evidence C 
Act, 1872, Section 115-Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, Rule 6-
Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 142-Relief 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: 
Section I I-Res Judicata-Basis and scope of-Comparison with D 
estoppel-"Cause of action estoppe/" and "issue estoppe/"-Distinction-
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115. 
Appellant had purchased an estate mainly of tea plantation from South 
India Tea, a respondent in an earlier appeal before this Court (CA 227178) E 
on the question of exclusion of "fuel area" from the plantation which was 
otherwise exempt from the limitation of"ceiling area" under the provisions 
of Kerala Land Reforms Act. 
Appellant filed return before the Land Revenue Board in relation to 
tea plantation held by it Total area of the land held by appellant was 4251.19 F 
acres, out of which 267.16 acres were sought to be surrendered. Appellant 
claimed exemption under four heads, viz, (i) Tea Plantation, ii) Roads and 
Buildings; iii) Area for fuel trees; and iv) Other Agricultural Land 
Interspersed. Taluk Land Board disallowed substantial claims of the 
appellant for exemption as 'fuel area' and rested tea area'. The appellant G 
filed revision before the High Court which restored the claims ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.