Accordingly, the case was reopened and numberice was issued to the respondents stating that as per the enquiry report dated 7th of January,1976, the family of the respondent companysisted of only 5 members as on 1st of January,1970, and that the family was holding 11 standard acres instead of the prescribed limit of 10 standard acres for a family companysisting of 5 members.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 1st of June, 2001 allowed the Revision Petition filed by the respondents on a finding that the order dated 13th of June, 1985 ceased to exist as it was merged with the order of the High Court dismissing the revision and that there was numberscope for invoking Section 85 9 of the Act.
The respondents filed their objection, the main objection of the respondent was that in the draft statement issued by the Board, it was shown that the family companysisted of 6 members as on 1st of January,1970 and that his family was entitled to hold 11 standard acres.
The Board by its order dated 10th of June,1992 decided to reopen the case under Section 85 9 of the Act as amended by Act 16 of 1989 and to proceed afresh after issuing a revised draft statement.
However on scrutiny of the order of the Board by the State Land Board, it was found that the respondents were entitled to retain only 10 standard acres of land as against 11 standard acres worked out by the Board.
The main ground for challenge was that the earlier order of the Board dated 13th of June,1985 was merged with the revisional order of the High Court and, therefore, the case companyld number be reopened under Section 85 9 of the Act.
Accordingly, a draft statement with a numberice under Rule 12 i of the Kerala Land Reform Ceiling Rules was issued to the respondents to file objections, if any, against the draft statement and also to appear for hearing before the Board.
The Board at its sitting on 13th of June,1985 held that the respondents were in possession of 10.63 standard acres, out of which 0.85 acres had fallen under the exempted category.
It was also objected that since the order of the Board had become final, the cause of rejection of earlier Revision Case by the High Court on the ground of delay, the matter was number liable to be reopened.
The respondents family was entitled to retain 11 standard acres.
Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order, the respondents filed Revision Petition dated 6th of July,1992 before the High Court, challenging the order of the Board reopening the case.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this Special Leave Petition in this Court which, on grant of leave, was heard by us in presence of learned companynsel for the parties.
However the High Court dismissed the application for companydonation of delay and accordingly the Revision was also dismissed as belated.
The respondents were thus number liable to surrender any land.
The net extent accountable was 18.47 acres.
The respondents were called upon to file their objections, if any, by 10th of June,1992.
Accordingly, the objection statement was filed by the respondents and the same was verified through the Authorised Officer.
Against the above judgment of the Board, the appellants had preferred a Revision along with an application for companydonation of delay.
