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