Moideen @ Kunhappa Haji vs Taluk Land Board and Others

P.A. Mohammed, J.—This revision is filed u/s 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). It is purported to have been filed against an ''order'' in SMP No. 122/76 of the Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna. The ''order'' impugned reads thus:

Please refer to your petition cited. Your request to measure the property could not be done by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board has already decided the celling case on 12-1-88.

The revision filed by you and other claimants dismissed by the Hon''ble High Court on 2-2-88. In the circumstance, you may approach the Taluk Surveyor, directly for the measurement. No further action seems necessary from this end.

Yours faithfully.

If is difficult for this court to read the above letter dated 19-7-1991 sent by the Taluk Land Board to the petitioner as a ''final order'' which is revisable u/s 103 of the Act Relevant Portion of the said Section reads thus:

Revision by High Court-(1) Any person aggrieved by -

(i) xx xx xx xx

(ii) XX XX XX XX

(iii) any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act.

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 Laud Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law.

The proceedings arising from SMP 122/76 have become final by reason of the order of this court in C.R.P. No. 231 of 1988 dated 2-2-1988. All the remedies available under the Act have been exhausted and nothing survives. However, the petitioner has filed a petition dated 9-7-1991 requesting the Taluk Land Board for measurement of the property. In reply the Board has directed the petitioner to approach the Taluk Surveyor.

Section 103 specifically refers to ''final order'' from which revision is allowed to the High Court. Whether it be final or interim there shall be an ''order'' in the true sense of the term. The word order is a well known legal expression and is generally understood as a command or direction by a court or by an authority intended to affect the rights of parties. According to Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ''order'' means formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree. In Black''s Law Dictionary the word ''order'' is defined thus:

A mandate; precept; command or direction authoritatively given.

What is contained in the aforesaid letter is only an advice to approach, the appropriate forum. That cannot be even equated as a refusal to adjudicate. The word ''order'' is not defined under the provisions of the Act. Therefore I am inclined to adopt the meaning, as generally understood, that it to say, the ''order'' contemplated u/s 103 (1)(iii) of the Act is the one that is intended to affect the rights of parties. Such orders of the Taluk Land Board alone are revisable u/s 103 of the Act In the result, the revision petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.