STATE OF KERALA versus M.K. KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERI MANIKOTH, NADUVIL (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 04-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
M.K. KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERI MANIKOTH, 
NADUVIL (DEAD) AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Kera/a Land Refomis Act, 1963-Section 85(8}-Ceiling proceedings-
Application for impleadment filed by sisters of the declarant found to be 
collusive and dismissed by High Court-Declarant challenges ceiling proceed-
C 
ings by filing another revision petition-High Court declares ceiling proceedings 
as void-If the order passed on the impleadment petition also becomes non-
est-Held : No. 
Proceedings were initiated against the family of Respondent No. 1 
under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. In the said D 
proceedings respondents No. 3 and 4 who were the sisters of Respondent 
No. 1 filed impleadment application claiming tenancy rights over the 
property. The application for impleadment was rejected by the Land 
Board. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed C.R.P. No. 3440 of 1977 before 
the High Court against the said order which was dismissed by the High E 
Court holding that alleged tenancy was a collusive attempt between the 
brother and the sisters. 
Respondent No. 1 had also challenged vide C.R.P. No. 3699of1977, 
the proceedings of the Land Board by which he was directed to surrender 
excess land held by him over and above the ceiling limit. The High Court F 
in C.R.P. No. 3696 of 1977 held that the proceedings against the Respon-
dent No. 1 was initiated suo moto and not on intimation given by the Land 
Board about non-filing of statement by the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, 
the High Court held that the ceiling proceedings against the Respondent 
No. 1 was void and quashed the impugned order. However, the High Court G 
did not preclude the Land Board from initiating the proceedings afresh in 
accordance with law. 
Pursuant to the order of the High Conrt in C.R.P. 3696 of 1997, the 
Land Board issued a fresh draft statement and issued notice to Respon· 
dents No.1and2. In these proceedings the Respondents No. 3 and 4 again H 
139 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A filed impleadment application which was allowed by the Board. The Board 
also held that the Respondent No. 1 was holding lands only within the 
ceiling limit. The revision petition of the Appellant was dismissed by the 
High Court on the ground that as the proceedings initiated by the Land 
Board had been declared as void and non-est, the proceedings from which 
B C.R.P. No. 3440 of 1997 arose was also non-est. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The order passed inter parties in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 
dated 2.11.1977, has become final, and it concludes the matter. The obser-
C vations made in the proceedings at the instance of the 1st respondent 
regarding the validity of the order of the Board, in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, 
will not, in any way, affect the legality and validity of the proceedings 
declining to implead respondents No. 3 and 4 or the order passed in 
Revision therefrom - C.R.P. 3440 of 1977. [144-G] 
D 
2.1. Mere use of the word 'void' is not determinative of it legal 
impact. The word 'void' has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. 
It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can 
be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of 
the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise. In this case, 
E the only complaint about the initiation of the suo moto proceedings by the 
Board was, that it was not initiated on intimation by the State Land Board 
about the non-filing of the statement as required by Section 85(7) of the 
Kerala Land Reforms Act. This is not a case where the infirmity is 
fundamental. [145-A-B] 
F 
2.2. Even a void order of decision rendered between parties cannot 
be said to be non-existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, 
such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it is successfully 
avoided or challenged in higher forum. [144-H] 
G 
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Judicial Review of Administra-
tive Action by De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, 1995 edn.; Administrative Law 
by Wade and Forsiyth, 7th edn, relied on. 
2.3. Even assuming that the order of the Board ·~-as held to be void 
in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977 (in the proceeding at th• instance of the 1st 
H respondent), the order passed in Revision between the parties herein, in 
STATE v. M.K.K. NAMBIAR MANJERI MANJKOTH [PATl'ANAIK, J.] 141 
C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 will be valid and cannot be

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