Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BABY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/11/1998
BENCH:
S.B.MAJMUDAR, M.JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
Leave granted.
These appeals are filed against the judgment of the
High Court in revision given under the Kerala Land Reforms
Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court set
aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 20th
Dec. 1989 which affirmed the order of the Land tribunal
dated 24th Nov., 1980. The dispute between the parties
before the international was as to whether the appellant
before us was the cultivating tenant.
A limited notice was issued in these appeals as to
whether the High Court had acted within its jurisdiction
under Section 103 of the Act. That Section reads as under:
"103, Revision by High Court :- (1) Any
person aggrieved by -
(i) any final order passed in an appeal
against the order of the Land Tribunal; or this Act;
or
(ii) any final order passed by the Land
Board Under this Act; or
(iii) any final order of the Talok Land
Board under this Act,
Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended
that the Taluk Land Board and the Appellant Authority have
not failed to decide any question of law nor could it be
said that any such question was erroneously decided. The
High Court had interfered with the order of the tribunals on
the ground that several material documents including
judicial proceedings were not adverted to by the tribunals.
The High Court held that the legal effect of these documents
was not considered by the tribunals. On those grounds, it
was argued the High Court was not entitled to interfere
under Section 103 of the Act. Learned senior counsel for
the appellant submitted that if certain documents were not
considered or their legal effect was not taken into
consideration, still that did not amount to an erroneous
decision of a question of law, not failure to decide a
question of law. Learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the question of existence of tenancy was a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
question of fact and if certain documents which were
relevant in that connection were not taken into
consideration it could not be said that the question of law
was erroneously decided or was not decided.
We find sufficient force in the contention of the
learned senior counsel for the appellant in regard to the
meaning of the words "has either decided erroneously or
failed to decide any question of law". On the facts of the
present case learned senior counsel is justified in
submitting that the lower tribunals had neither decided any
question of law erroneously nor failed to decide any
question of law. Mere non-cnsideration of relevant
documents including the relevance of certain Judicial
Proceedings would not strictly fall within Section 103 of
the Act.
But that, in our opinion, is not the end of the
matter. The High court had still powers under Article 227
of the Constitution of India to quash the orders passed by
the tribunals if the findings of fact had been arrived at by
non-consideration of the relevant and material documents the
consideration of which could have led to an opposite
conclusion. This power of the High court under the
Constitution of India is always in addition to the powers of
revision under Section 103 of the Act. In that view of the
matter the High Court rightly set aside the orders of the
tribunals. We do not, therefore, interfere under Article
136 of the constitution of India. The appeals fail and are
dismissed.
No costs.
may within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a
petition to the High Court against the order on the ground
that the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk
Land Board, as the erroneously, or failed to decide, any
question of law."
Learned