TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85 (8) of the Land Reforms Act, to set aside the proceedings of the order of Board dated 28.6.1977 and claimed tenancy rights over an extent of property measuring 10 acres, in R.S. Nos. 201 and 208 of Naduvil village, Taliparamba. The impleament petition was rejected by the Board on 7.10.1977. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed C.R.P. No.3440 of 1977 before the High Court of Kerala, which was disposed of on 2.11.1977. the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- The declarant in ceiling proceedings No.447777(TBA) on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba was directed by the Taluk Land Board by its order dated 28.6.1977 to surrender an extent of 6.32 acres of land held by his family in excess of the ceiling limit. This two petitioners, who are the sisters of the declarant, filed an application under section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for reopening the order contending that they are cultivating tenants in respect of the property with respect to an extent of 10 acres. The Taluk Land Board after having gone into the evidence placed before it found that no proof regarding the alleged tanancy was produced before the Taluk Land Board and that the cultivating tenancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 1.7.1987, held thus:- The order in C.R.P. 3696/77 has become final. It can be seen from the said order that the S.M. proceedings initiated by the T.L.B. was declared void and hence non est. That being the position, it is needless to say that the proceedings from which C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 arose also is non est. It cannot therefore be said that the rights of the parties to the said proceedings has been determined by any authority constituted under the K.L.R. Act. On the merits, the learned single Judge also held that it cannot be said that the Board decided any question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law to merit interference in exercise of the revisional powers vested under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is from the aforesaid order of the High Court, the State had filed the present appeal. 4. We heard Mr.M.T. George, who appeared for the appellant and also Mr. A.S. Nambiar, senior counsel, who appeared for the respondents. Counsel for the appellant argued that the majority members of the Board committed a grave error in ordering the impleadment of respondents No.3 and 4 by order dated 29.7.1980 and in upholding the plea of tenancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations 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, effect 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. It is true that the proceedings dated 28.6.1977 was observed to be void in law in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, filed by the first respondent. In our opinion, even a void order or 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. Mere use of the word void is not daterminative of its 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 and in this case, the only complaint about the initiation of the suo moto proceedings by Board was, that it was not initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy Council without distinction between patent and latent defects. The above statement of the law supports our view that the order of the Board dated 28.6.1977, declining to implead respondents No. 3 and 4 (which stood confirmed in Revision) concludes the matter against respondents No. 3 and 4. 8. The additional feature in this case, is that the decision of the Board declining to implead respondents No. 3 and 4 was taken up in Revision - C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 wherein the order of the Board was affirmed and it was further observed that the plea of tenancy was not proved and it was only a collusive attempt between respondent No. 1 and respondents No. 3 and 4. Even assuming, for arguments sake that the order of the Board was held to be void in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977 (in the proceeding at the instance of the 1st respondent). the order passed in Revision between the parties herein, in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 will be valid and cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or invalid. In this context. the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Janardhan Reddy others vs. State of Hyderabad and others, (A.I.R. 1951 SC 217) is of great relevance. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
