SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 1989. D/d. 27.1.1999.

E. Cherian - Appellant

Versus

State of Kerala - Respondent

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Sections 103 - Revisional power of High Court - High Court can set aside finding of Taluk Land Board in revisional jurisdiction only in Taluk Land Board in revisional jurisdiction only in Taluk Board has decided any question erroneously or failed to decide any legal question.

[Paras 3 and 4]

ORDER

K.T. Thomas, J. - In reckoning the ceiling area of the land of the appellant as per the provision of the Kerala Land Reforms Act there was a dispute concerning 32 acres. The appellant contended that the aforesaid 32 acres was replanted in 1967 and hence it was a plantation from 1955-56 onwards. The Taluk Land Board accepted the appellants' case and treated the aforesaid 32 acres as falling within the ambit of "plantation" under the Act and resultantly it was exempted from the reckoning for fixing the ceiling area. But the High Court in revision interfered with the aforesaid finding and held, by a perusal of certain documents, that it could not have been a plantation prior to 1967. Therefore, the said area was also directed to be included within the ceiling limit of the appellant. This appeal is in challenge of the said order of the High Court.

2. Learned Single Judge perused the file of the Taluk Land Board and noted that in Form A supplied by the Rubber Board there was no signature of any responsible person "at the appropriate place" and hence concluded that the entries in that form cannot be given due weight. It is an admitted position that the disputed area was a rubber plantation in 1967. Whether it was so prior to that year and from 1955-56 onwards is a question of fact and the Taluk Land Board decided the aforesaid disputed fact in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if the aforesaid disputed area was not a plantation prior to 1967 that area would have been a "private forest" during that preceding period and in which case also the appellant would have been legitimately entitled to claim exemption from the ceiling provision. We are not disposed to countenance the said contention, for, there is no material before us to show as to what else would have been the use of the land prior to 1967, unless it was not for what the appellant claimed it to have been.

3. But the point pressed before us by the learned counsel is that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting a fact finding arrived at by the Taluk Land Board, Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act which deals with the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court circumscribes the revisional power to examine whether the Taluk Land Board "has either decided erroneously or failed to decide, any question of law".

4. The dispute whether the area was a replantation in 1967 or not is eminently a question of fact. We therefore find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel that the said finding could not have been upset by the High Court in the revisional jurisdiction without any legal question involved therein.

5. In the result we set aside the impugned order and restore the finding of the Taluk Land Board in regard to the aforesaid disputed area.

6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.