Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.)The State of Kerala is in appeal assailing the impugned orders passed by the High Court made in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1983 (for short the Act). The Taluk Land Board directed the respondents to surrender a total extent of about 2067 acres of land holding that, that was the excess land in their possession as on 1-1-1970, the date on which the ceiling provisions of the Act were brought into force. Late Shri C. Kumaran Nair purchased 1501 acres of land on 22-12-1965 which was a private forest. It was also the case of the respondents that the said land was converted into rubber plantation before 1-1-1970. The legal heirs of late Shri C. Kumaran Nair were the declarants in Ceiling Case S.R. 780 of 1973 in the Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna. Their main contention was that the area of 1501 acres of land purchased by late Shri C. Kumaran Nair, being a private forest, was exempted under Section 81 of the Act and further that the said land having been converted into rubber plantation before 1-1-1970 also got the benefit of exemption under the said Section. The Taluk Land Board rejected the contentions of the respondents and held that excess land of 1501 acres was in their possession. Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed C. R. P. No. 1654 of 1991 in the High Court.
(2.)The claim made by the assignees of the declarants in respect of the properties in Mannarkkad taluk over 546.56 acres was also rejected on the ground that they failed to establish their claim of plantation over the said land prior to 1-1-1970. Aggrieved by the rejection of their claim, the assignees of the declarants filed C. R. P. No. 1697 of 1991. The High Court by the impugned common order concluded that the area of 1501 acres purchased by late Shri C. Kumaran Nair on 22-12-1965 should be excluded from reckoning in the ceiling area applicable to the respondents but no discussion was made in regard to the subject matter and the questions raised in C. R. P. No. 1697 of 1991. In that situation, a review petition was filed by the respondents in C. R. P. No. 1697 of 1991 which was allowed by the High Court by the order dated 30th July, 1996 holding that non-mentioning of 257 acres of land covered by revision petition in C. R. P. No. 1697 of 1991 was only an omission and that was to be incorporated in last paragraph of the common order made in both the C. R. Ps. on 11-9-1995 without affecting the order made in C. R. P. No. 1654 of 1991. C. A. No. 324 of 1998 is against this order of the High Court made in review.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Act was not right and justified in interfering with the order passed by the Taluk Land Board; the High Court could disturb the finding recorded by the Taluk Land Board only when the Board decided the question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law; from the impugned order, it cannot be said that the Taluk Land Board had decided any question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The learned Counsel further submitted that on the facts found by the Taluk Land Board, its conclusions could be sustained; the respondents failed to establish that there was plantation in the lands in question prior to 1-1-1970; further the lands in question being the private forest vested in the Government under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.