http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.K. KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERIMANIKOTH, NADUVIL (DEAD) AND

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1995

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1996 AIR  906            1996 SCC  (1) 435  JT 1995 (8)   533        1995 SCALE  (6)734

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PARIPOORNAN. J.      The State  of Kerala,  having obtained  leave  of  this Court in  Special Leave  Petition (C)  No.  13411  of  1987, appeals against  the judgment  of a  learned single Judge of the High  Court of  Kerala, rencered  in C.R.P.  No. 2538 of 1981 dated 1.7.1987. The matter arises under the Kerala Land Reforms Act  in connection  with the proceedings relating to determination of  ceiling area of the 1st respondent, by the Taluk Land  Board, Taliparamba  (hereinafter referred  to as the Board)  in T.L.B.  447  of  1977.  The  Board  initiated proceedings, T.L.B.  447 of  1977 and  issued notice to late respondent No. 1, head of the family, to surrender an extent of 6.32  acres of  land, which according to the Board is the land, the  family headed by the first respondent was holding in excess  of the ceiling area. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of  the   first  respondent.   In  the   said   proceedings, respondents No.  3 and  4 (sisters  of the first respondent) sought impleament  under Section  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    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   alleged   was   a      collusive attempt  between  the  brother      and the sisters to defeat the provisions      of the  Act. It  cannot be said that the      Taluk  Land  Board  has  either  decided      erronedusly  or   failed  to   decide  a      question of  law to  attract Section 103      of the  Act. The  revision is  therefore      dismissed  without   admitting  in   the      file."                           (Emphasis supplied) 2.   The first  respondent also  challenged the  proceedings dated 28.6.1977.  by which he was directed to surrender 6.32 acres of  land, in  C.R.P.  No.  3696  of  1977.  The  Civil Revision Petition  was allowed  by order dated 14.3.1979 and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:-           "I do  not think  that I  should go      into the merits of the objections raised      by  the  petitioner  in  regard  to  the      fixation of  the ceiling area in view of      the fact that the impugned order is in a      suo   moto    Proceedings   where    the      proceedings have  been initiated  not on      intimation given by the Land Board about      the  non-filing   of  the  statement  as      required by  section 85(7) of the Kerala      Land Reforms Act. However, the order was      sought to  be supported  by the  learned      Government pleader  on the  ground  that      they  have   subsequently  ratified  the      proceedings before  the final  order was      actually issued.  In the  nature of  the      provision in  Section 85(7) that may not      validate  the  proceedings  which  would      render  such  proceedings  void  in  law      cannot  be  cured  by  ratification.  No      doubt, the  disposal of  the  C.R.P.  by      quashing  the  impugned  order  on  this      ground will  not prevent  the Taluk Land      Board for  proceedings the matter afresh      on due, intimation to the Land Board and      in accordance with Law."                           (Emphasis supplied) 3.   In pursuance  to the later order of the High Court, the Board issued  a revised draft statement and issued notice to respondents  No.   1  and   2  calling  upon  them  to  file objections, if  any.  No  objections  were  filed.  However, respondents  No.   3  and  4  filed  a  fresh  petition  for impleadment on  30.6.1980, which was allowed by the majority members of  the Board  on 29.7.1980. The majority members of the Board,  by proceedings dated 9.1.1981, accepted the plea put forward by respondents No. 3 and 4 regarding tenancy and further held  that respondent  No. 1  was holding lands only within the  ceiling limit.  There was  no surplus land to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

surrendered. The  aforesaid decision  was  assaifed  by  the State of Kerala before the High Court in C.R.P. No. 2538/81. The learned  single Judge  of the  High Court  of Kerala, by order dated 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 urged by them.  He further argued that the learned single Judge of the High  Court erred  in law in holding that in view of the order  passed   in  C.R.P.   No.  3696  of  1977,  the  S.M. proceedings initiated  by the Board was void and non est and that being  the position,  the proceedings from which C.R.P. 3440 of  1977 (Revision  filed by  respondents No.3  and 4 ) arose, also is non est. The conclusion of the learned single Judge "that it cannot be said that the rights of the parties to the said proceedings had been determined by any authority constituted under  the Kerala Land Reforms Act" was assailed as illegal.  On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, Mr.  A.S.   Nambiar,  argued   that  since  the  proceedings initiated by  the Board dated 28.6.1977 was found to be void in law,  in C.R.P.  3696 of  1977, it  cannot  be  cured  by ratification, and  the order  passed by  the Board rejecting the impleadment  of respondents  No. 3 and 4 dated 7.10.1977 and confirmed  by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 3440 of 1977, by order  dated 2.11.1977 is non est and in this perspective the fresh  application for impleadment filed in pursuance to the order  passed by  the High  Court in  C.R.P. No. 3696 of 1977 and the consequential final decision of the Board dated 29.7.1980 are sustainable and valid in law. 5.   The short  question that  arises for  consideration  is whether the order passed by the Board in the first instance, rejecting the  impleadment of  respondents No.  3 and 4, and holding that  the tenancy  put forward is a "collusive" one, which was  affirmed by  the High Court in C.R.P. No. 3440 of 1977 on  2.11.1977. can  be ignored  in view  of  the  order passed in  C.R.P. No.  3696  of  1977  filed  by  the  first respondent ?  As between the State and respondents No. 3 and 4 the  order passed  by the  Board as  confirmed by the High Court in  C.R.P. 3440  OF 1977  Dated 2.11.1977  has  become final. It  is a  valid order.  Will the observations made in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977 to the effect "that the S.M. proceedings without intimation  by the  Board under Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land  Reforms  Act  render  such  proceedings  void",

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

effect the  legality or  validity of  the proceedings  which culminated in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 ? 6.   It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. We are of the view that the order passed inter parties in C.R.P.  3440 of  1977 dated  2.11.1977, has become final, and it  concludes the  matter. The  observations 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  on intimation by  the State  Land Board about the non-filing of the statement  as required  by Section  85(7) of  the Kerala Land Reforms  Act. In  our opinion, this is not a case where the infirmity  is fundamental. It is unnecessary to consider the matter further. 7.   In Halsbury’s  Laws of  England, 4th edition, (Reissue) Volume 1(1) in paragraph 26, page 31, it is stated, thus:-           "If an act or decision, or an order      or  other   instrument  is  invalid,  it      should, in  principle, be  null and void      for all  purposes: and  it has been said      that there  are no  degrees of  nullity.      Even though  such an  act is  wrong  and      lacking  in  jurisdiction,  however,  it      subsists  and  remains  fully  effective      unless and  until it  is set  aside by a      court of  competent jurisdiction.  Until      its validity is challenged, its legality      is preserved." In the  Judicial Review  of Administrative Action, De Smith. Woolf and  Jowell, 1995 edition. at pages 259-260 the law is stated, thus:-           "The  erosion  of  the  distinction      between jurisdictional  errors and  non-      jurisdictional errors  has, as  we  have      seen,   correspondingly    eroded    the      distinction between  void  and  voidable      decisions.  The   courts   have   become      increasingly    impatient    with    the      distinction,  to  the  extent  that  the      situation today  can  be  summarised  as      follows:      (1)  All official decisions are presumed      to be valid until set aside or otherwise      held  to   be  invalid  by  a  court  of      competent Jurisdiction." Similarly, Wade  and Forsyth  in Administrative Law, Seventh edition- 1994, have stated the law thus at pages 341-342:-           "every uniawful administrative act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    however invalid, is merely voidable. But      this is  no more than the truism that in      most situations  the only  way to resist      unlawful action  is by  recourse to  the      law.  In   a  well-known   passage  Lord      Raodliffe said:      An order,  even  if  not  made  in  good      faith, is  still an act capable of legal      consequences.  It   bears  no  brand  of      invalidity upon its forehead. Uniess the      necessary proceedings  are taken  at law      to establish the cause of invalidity and      to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it      will  remain   as  effective   for   its      ostensible   purpose    as   the    most      impeccable of orders.      This must be equally true even where the      brand of  invalidity is plainly visible:      for there also the order can effectively      be resisted in law only by obtaining the      decision of  the court. The necessity of      recourse to  the court  has been pointed      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. In that case, the Court found that there is no specific order of the civil administrator  making over the case covered by charge- sheet No.  14 dated  20.7.1949 [charge  sheet No. 14 (2)] to the Tribunal.  Therefore, the  Court held  that prima  facie there was  room to hold that case No. 17. which was affected by the  charge sheet No. 14 (2) was never properly made over to the  Tribunal and  the trial  of the accused in that case was, therefore,  without jurisdiction.  But the  matter  was carried in appeal before the High Court of Hyderabad and the convictions and  sentences  were  confirmed.  It  was  urged before the  Supreme Court  that notwithstanding the decision rendered by  the High  Court in appeal since the decision of the Tribunal  was without  jurisdiction, the  detention  was invalid. In  repelling this  piea, Fazl  Ali, J. observed at page 225, thus:-      "Evidently, the  appellate Ct. in a case      which  properly   comes  before   it  on      appeal, is  fully  competent  to  decide      whether the  trial was  with or  without      jurisdiction, &  it has  jurisdiction to      decide the  matter rightly  as  well  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

    wrongly. If  it affirms  the  conviction      and thereby  decides  wrongly  that  the      trial Ct.  had the  jurisdiction to  try      and convict  it cannot  be said  to have      acted without jurisdiction and its order      cannot be treated as a nullity."      "It is  well settled  that if a Ct. acts      without jurisdiction,  its decision  can      be challenged  in the  same  way  as  it      would have  been challenged  if  it  had      acted with jurisdiction, i.e., an appeal      would lie  to the  Ct. to which it would      lie if its order was with jurisdiction." 9.   In the light of the above position in law, whatever may have been  the infirmity  in the  proceedings of  the  Board dated 28.6.1977  (which was  set aside  in  C.R.P.  3696  of 1977), since  the said  proceedings were  affirmed in C.R.P. 3440 of  1977 dated  2.11.1977, which  is the final decision inter-parties, (State  of Kerala  and respondents  No. 3 and 4), it  was not  open to  the Board  to order impleadment of respondents No.  3 and  4 in  the  revised  draft  statement proceedings by order dated 29.7.1980 and in finally ordering the matter  in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4, as it did, by order dated 9.1.1981. We are constrained to hold that the learned single  Judge of  the High  Court committed  a grave error in holding that the proceedings rendered inter parties between the State and respondents No. 3 and 4, which finally stood confirmed  by the order in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977, is non est and can be ignored. We set aside the order passed by the High Court  in C.R.P.  No. 2538  of 1981  dated 1.7.1987. In consequence, the  revised orders  passed by  the Board dated 29.7.1980 and  9.1.1981 will  stand annulled. This appeal is allowed with  costs payable  by  respondents  No.  3  and  4 herein. quantified at Rs.5000/-.