LexSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus KONDOTTYPARAMBANMOOSA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 957 ,, ' STATE OF KERALA & ANR. A v. KONDOTTYPARAMBANMOOSA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3331 of 2002) AUGUST 5, 2008 B [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Kera/a Lan_d Reforms Act, 1963 - s. 85 (9) - Taluk Land Board deciding that the land held by land-holder was not in ex- cess of ceiling limft - Revision against the order dismissed by c High Court on the ground of delay - Board thereafter decided to reopen the case - Order directing reopening cha!Jenged - High Court holding that the previous order of the Board having merged with the order of High Court re-opening of case u/s 85 (9) not permissible - On appeal, held: The revision petition D having been rejected on the ground of delay, doctrine of merger is not applicable - Hence the order in revision ·cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Board to reopen the case -Doctrine of merger. is applicable where the appeal/revision is entertained by the higher forum on merits - Dismissal on the ground of E delay will· not attract applicability of the doctrine - Doctrine of merger- Kera/a Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules - Rule.12 (i). · 1,n verification report, of the statement filed by respon- dents u/s 85 (A) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, it was found that the respondent was holding the land in excess of the F ceiling limit. Taluk Land Board held that the respondent's family was not holding the land in excess of the ceiling ~ limit. Revision petition against the order of the Board was dismissed on the· ground of delay. · Thereafter on scrutiny of the order of the Taluk Board G by State Land Board, it was found that the respondents '1( were holding the land in excess of the ceiling limit, and directed to reopen the case. Taluk Board decided to re- open the case u/s 85 (9) of the Act. 957 H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A Respondents filed revision petition challenging the reopening of the case. High Court allowed the petition holding that the earlier order of Taluk Board ceased to exist having merged with the order of High Court whereby revision was dismissed. Hence Section 85 (9) could not B have been invo~ed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Taluk Land Board u/s. 85(9) of Kerala Lan.d Reforms Act, 1963 was entitled to reopen the case in com- e pliance with Section 85(9) of the Act. The earlier order of Taluk Board could not be merged with the order of the High Court passed in revision case. High Court in the impugned order did not at all consider that in the earlier revision order of the High Court, revisional application was 0 rejected not on merits but only on the ground of delay. Therefore, it must be held that since earlier revision appli- cation was not rejected on merits, the said order reject- ing the same on the ground of delay cannot be said to be. the order of affirmance and that being the position, it is held that since the earlier revision petition was not de- E cided on merits, the doctrine of merger cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. [Paras 25 and 27] [966 F,G,H, 967-F] 1.2 The doctrine of merger would only apply in a case F when a higher forum entertains an appeal or revision and passes an order on merit and not when the appeal or revi- sion is dismissed on the ground that delay in filing the same is not condoned. Mere rejection of the revision peti- tion on the ground of delay cannot be allowed to take away G · the jurisdiction of the Board, whose order forms a stAbject matter of petition and Section 85(9) of the Act confers pow- ers on the Board to reopen the cas~ if such grounds for reopening the case are shown to exist. [Para 26] [967-C,D] Smt. S. Kalawati vs. Durga Prasad and Am: A!R 1975 H SC 1272; Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji \, - STATE OF KERALA & -ANR. v. KONDOTTYPARAM- 959 BANMOOSA & ORS. Dattatraya Bapat 1969 (2) SCC 74; Kunhayammed and Ors.· A vs. State of Kera/a and Anr 2000(6)SCC 359; Chandi Prasad and Ors. vs. Jagdish Prasad and Ors. 2004 (8) SCC 724 - relied·on. Case Law Reference AIR 1975 SC 1272 1969 (2) sec 74 2000(6) sec 359 2004 (8) sec 124 Relied on Para 22 Relied on Para 23 Relied on Para 24 Relied on Para 25 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3331 of 2002 From the final Judgment dated 1/6/2001 of the High Court B c of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP No. 1365 of 1992 D G. Prakash for the Appellants. Subramonium Pra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.