Muralee Krishna, J
1. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14525 of 2023 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by this Court in that writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents, who are in possession of Annexure A document now produced by the petitioner along with this review petition, purposefully did not produce the same in the writ petition. If Annexure A document was before this Court at the time of passing the judgment in the writ petition, the result would have been different. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that as per Section 6(1) of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (‘the KDH Act’, in short) the Collector shall cause the boundaries of each parcel of land, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3, to be demarcated. As per Section 6(2) of the KDH Act, as soon as the completion of the demarcation as stipulated in Section 6(1), the Collector shall publish a notification prescribing the extent, boundaries and other particulars as may be prescribed of such land. By relying on Annexure A, the relevant extract of Kerala Gazette No.7 dated 15.02.1977 Part III, the learned counsel pointed out that neither survey No.843A nor 912 is included in the said notification published under Section 6(2) of the KDH Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the land in dispute in this case is not vested in the Government under Section 3(1) of the KDH Act. In such circumstances, the District Collector is not the authority to issue assignment orders in respect of the property in question, on the strength of Section 9 of the KDH Act. Since Annexure A document was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the present review petition squarely falls under the grounds of review provided under Order XLVII Rule 1, read with Section 114 of the CPC. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [(2013) 8 SCC 320] to contend that the present review petition is maintainable in view of the discovery of a new and important matter of evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that as per Section 3(2)(d) of the KDH Act, lands in possession of Central Government or in State Government or in Kerala State Electricity Board are excluded from the purview of Section 3(1) of the said Act and therefore the respondents cannot contend that the entire land situated within Kannan Devan Hills village are vested in the Government on coming into force of KDH Act and falls within the purview of the lands mentioned in Section 3(1) of the KDH Act. By relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 06.01.2021 in W.P.(C)No.5728 of 2009, the learned counsel argued that even the land involved in that case was admitted by the Government as not falling under the category of lands mentioned in Section 3(1) of the KDH Act, though situated in Kannan Devan Hills Village. In that judgment, this Court found that those lands are assignable under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and Rules and do not come under the KDH Act for assignment. The learned counsel pointed out the preambles of the KDH Act as well as the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (‘KLA Act’ in short) to argue that both these Acts operate in different fields, and the intentions behind the Acts are also different.
4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader maintained the stand that the land in question in W.P.(C)No.14525 of 2023 is situated in the Kannan Devan Hills Village, and thus automatically vested with the Government by the coming into force of the KDH Act. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, only for the reason that the survey numbers claimed by the petitioner are not included in Annexure A notification, it will not take away the automatic vesting of the property with the government stipulated under the provisions of the KDH Act. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that without admitting that the land is Government land, the petitioner cannot claim assignment either under the KDH Act or under the KLA Act. When the land is claimed as Government land in the possession of a private person, then definitely it would fall under the land mentioned in Section 3(1) of the KDH Act, since it will not fall under the category of exempted land as provided under Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the KDH Act. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. In support of his argument, the learned Senior Government Pleader relied on a judgment of this Court dated 24.03.2025 in W.A.No.1604 of 2015.
5. Apart from the above submission on merits, by pointing out the judgment of the Apex Court in T.N Electricity Board v. N Raju Reddiar [(1997) 9 SCC 736], the learned Senior Government Pleader vehemently submitted that it is not a healthy practice to file a review petition after the disposal of the main matter by engaging a different counsel. To this argument of the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the judgment of the Apex Court in M.Poornachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1996) 6 SCC 755] to contend that the only requirement in the case of filing such a review petition is the no-objection certificate from the advocate on record.
6. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned, as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court, as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.
7. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:
“114. Review-
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”
8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
“1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation-
The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”
9. It is trite that review power under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner;
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
10. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
11. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
“Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
(Underline supplied)
12. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
13. In Kamlesh Verma [(2013) 8 SCC 320] the Apex Court laid down the following principles as far as a review petition is concerned.
“16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [(1955) 1 SCR 520], to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. [JT 2013 (8) SC 275].
(B) When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
14. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
15. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
“The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided”.
16. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held thus:
“Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.”
17. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC OnLine 212], in which one of us [Muralee Krishna S., J] is a party, after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on the merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
18. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us consider the claim of error apparent on the face of the record raised by the petitioner in the instant case. To understand the merit of the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to go through the judgment dated 17.03.2025, sought to be reviewed. For brevity, we are extracting only the reasoning part of the judgment hereunder. Paragraphs 8 to 16 and the last paragraph of the judgment read thus:
“8. The land in question is situated within the area wherein the KDH Act is notified as applicable by the Government. As per Section 1(2) of the Act, it came into force on 21.01.1971. As per Section 1(3) of the Act, it applies to the land comprising the revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills in the Devikulam Taluk. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of possession of all lands situated in Kannan Devan Village in Devikulam Taluk in the Government. Section 3 of the KDH Act reads as under:
“3. Vesting of possession of certain lands.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the possession of all lands situate in the Kannan Devan Hills village in the Devikulam taluk of the Kottayam district shall stand transferred to and vest in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the lessees and all other persons, including rights of mortgagees and holders of encumbrances, in respect of such lands, shall stand extinguished.
(2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of-
(a)plantations, other than plantations belonging to trespassers ;
(b) buildings, other than buildings belonging to trespassers, and lands appurtenant to, and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of, such buildings;
(c) play-grounds and burial and burning grounds; and
(d) lands in the possession of the Central Government or any State Government or the Kerala State Electricity Board.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of land held by a lessee under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto”.
9. Section 9 of the KDH Act deals with assignment of such lands. The said Section reads as under:
“9. Assignment of lands- (1) The Government shall, after reserving such extent of the lands, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 (other than lands, the possession of which has been restored under section 4), as may be necessary for purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the agricultural population to be settled on such lands, assign on registry the remaining lands to agriculturists and agricultural labourers in such manner, on such terms and subject to such conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed.
(2) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate their power of assignment under sub-section (1) to the Collector, subject to such restrictions and control as may be specified in the notification.”
10. A reading of Section 9(2) of the KDH Act would make it clear that the power to assign the land vested in the Government under the provisions of the said Act is on the Government and such power can be delegated by notification in the Gazette to the District Collector. If the property is part of the vested land under the KDH Act, necessarily the provisions of the KDH Act and Rules made thereunder would apply for the assignment of that land. In the instant case, Ext.P3 patta relied on by the petitioner is issued by the Tahsildar and not by the District Collector. The Tahsildar is empowered to issue patta by following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (‘KLA Act’ in Short) and not under the KDH Act.
11. In Augustine K.B and another v. State of Kerala and others [2016 (2) KLJ 18] this Court considered a similar situation wherein patta was issued to the petitioner therein under the KLA Act instead of the KDH Act and held that since the land in question therein will not come within the exclusionary clause of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 and would come within the ambit of Section 3(1), the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 9(2) of the KDH Act should have to be strictly adhered to. In that situation, the assigning authority under Section 9(2) of the KDH Act and KDH Rules would either be the District Collector concerned or an officer of the rank of District Collector appointed by the Government for that purpose. The procedures to be followed in the case of assignment of land under the KLA Act and under the KDH Act are entirely different.
12. As per Section 4 of the KLA Act, it is the Tahsildar of the Taluk in which the land is situated or any officer empowered by the Government in that behalf is the authorized officer to issue Patta. Section 4 of the KLA Act reads as under:
“4. Procedure to be followed before Government lands are assigned.
(1) When any Government land is proposed to be assigned by the prescribed authority, otherwise than by way of lease or licence, the Tahsildar of the taluk in which the land is situate or any officer empowered by the Government in this behalf shall notify in the prescribed manner that such land will, by public auction or otherwise, be assigned, and call upon those who have got any claim to such land to prefer to him their objections, if any, in writing, within a time which shall be specified in such notification.
(2) If any objection is preferred within the time specified in the notification, the Tahsildar or such other officer shall enquire into the same and pass an order in writing either accepting or rejecting the claim in full or in part and intimate in writing the fact of such disposal to the claimant.
(3) For the purposes of the enquiry under sub-section (2) the officer making the enquiry shall have all the powers conferred upon the Collectors and Tahsildars by the law for the time being in force regarding summoning of persons for disposal of matters connected with revenue administration.”
13. Though the petitioner claimed that the property having an extent of 8 cents in survey No.912 of KDH Village was in the possession of his parents for the last several decades, he did not produce any document showing that the property was in their possession prior to coming into force of the KDH Act on 21.01.1971. In order to claim exemption under Section 3(3)of the said Act, it has to be proved by the petitioner that the property in question was in his possession prior to 21.01.1971 under his personal cultivation as a lessee. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the building in the land was numbered as IX/160A by the Munnar Grama panchayat during the period 1987-1992. Ext.P1 document, which is a certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat showing possession of that building is dated 17.03.1993. As per that document, the building number in the assessment register was for the years 1987-1988 to 1991-1992.
14. The first request made by the petitioner to correct the survey number in Ext.P2 order of assignment and Ext P3 patta was by virtue of Ext.P4 application dated 05.06.2009 submitted before the 3rd respondent District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 30507 of 2010 before this Court wherein Ext.P5 judgment dated 28.10.2010 was passed by this Court directing the 3rd respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders in Ext.P4 application within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of that judgment. As per Ext.P6 order dated 29.10.2011, the 3rd respondent rejected Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner, holding that the request for correction of survey number written in the patta is against the provision of the Rules. It was found in that order that the “patta was issued by the statutory authority after completing the procedure prescribed in the statute and Change of survey number in such a statutory document without completing the procedure prescribed for assignment of land comprised in new survey number to be incorporated in the patta is irregular and not allowable”. The petitioner then submitted an appeal before the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue and the appeal was dismissed by virtue of Ext.P7 order dated 05.01.2015. Again the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.7296 of 2015 before this Court and during the pendency of that writ petition Ext.P8 circular dated 30.10.2017 was issued by the 1st respondent State of Kerala to permit the revenue authority to correct the survey number in deserving cases, if found necessary after completing the formalities of identifying the property with reference to the description of the same in the patta, etc. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 20.02.2020, directing the 5th respondent Tahsildar to consider the request made by the petitioner for correction of the survey number in the order of assignment or patta after conducting all due verifications in the light of Ext.P8 circular. Again, as per Ext.P10 order dated 08.01.2021, the 5th respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on finding that the boundaries of the property are not tallying with Ext.P2 order of assignment and no files corresponding to the L.A. number is available in the office. Against Ext.P10 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent. During the pendency of that appeal, Ext.P11 notice dated 11.2.2022 was issued under Section 12 of Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 by the 5th respondent directing the petitioner to show cause, stating that he has been in unauthorised occupation of 9.043 cents in survey No.912 of Munnar Village. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C)No.7424 of 2022 before this Court seeking disposal of his appeal and not to proceed with Ext.P11 notice. As per Ext.P12 judgment dated 31.03.2022 this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 4th respondent to take a decision in the appeal and further directed to maintain status quo till the appeal is decided. Subsequently, by Ext.P13 order dated 06.10.2022, the 4th respondent dismissed the appeal against which the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 revision petition dated 09.11.2022 under Rule 21(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1957, before the 2nd respondent. Meanwhile, the 5th respondent again issued Ext.P15 order dated 02.11.2022 directing the petitioner to vacate the land within seven days. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C)No.37449 of 2022 before this Court and by virtue of Ext.P16 judgment dated 22.11.2022, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within three months and Ext.P15 order was directed to be kept in abeyance till such time. As per Ext.P17 order dated 11.04.2023, the 2nd respondent dismissed Ext.P14 revision filed by the petitioner. It is thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
15. On 26.03.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to make available the entire files in L.A. No.32 of 2001 in which the petitioner claims that he was issued Ext.P3 patta to the property in question. But on 03.03.2025 when the matter was finally heard, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the file pertaining to L.A. No.32 of 2001 is not available in the office concerned and in fact the genuineness of such an L.A. number and patta issued therein is doubtful. The learned Senior Government Pleader produced the file pertaining to eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act in a sealed cover, which contained a complaint filed by a lady before the District Collector, Idukki claiming that she is in occupation of the shed constructed in the property in question on rental basis as permitted by the petitioner’s wife and the petitioner is trying to evict her from that house. By the perusal of that file we could gather that after Ext.P17 decision in the revision petition filed by the petitioner, the eviction proceedings proceeded further and culminated by taking possession of the same by the 5th respondent Tahsildar on 19.04.2023 and a board was affixed therein showing that it is the property of the Government.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in Ext.P24 assignment list, the name of the petitioner is included and hence the contention of the Government that there were no assignment proceedings in favour of the petitioner is incorrect. It is true that in Ext.P24 assignment list produced by the petitioner, his name is shown against serial No.1 as the person assigned with property in survey No.843A. The extent of that property is shown as 8 cents. But from the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and from the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the file pertaining to assignment of the property to the petitioner is not available in the revenue office concerned. In Ext.P17 order the 2nd respondent Land Revenue Commissioner found that the name of the petitioner is not therein in No.1 and No.2 registers. The number assigned to the building put up by the petitioner in the property is also a temporary number assigned to unauthorised construction under Sections 235A and 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. With the risk of repetition, we may say that Ext.P3 patta relied by the petitioner cannot be validated as the one issued in respect of the property in question by simply correcting the survey number, since it was not issued by the person authorised to issue the same under the KDH Act and there is no material to say that any procedure as contemplated under the KDH Act and Rules are followed in issuing such a patta, especially when the petitioner failed to place any materials on record to accept his contention that the property will fall under the exempted properties in Section 3(3) of the KDH Act”.
19. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the first blush appear impressive. However, on a deeper dig into the provisions of the KDH Act, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, for the reasons stated in the succeeding paragraphs of this order.
20. The land in question in the instant case is situated within the area wherein the KDH Act is notified as applicable by the Government. It is specifically pleaded in the writ petition that the land in question is situated in KDH Village. The contention of the petitioner is that his land is exempted from Section 3(1) of the KDH Act, as it falls under the category of exempted land under Section 3(2)(d)of the said Act. At this juncture, it is worth to note the preamble of the KDH Act, which reads thus:
“Preamble. — WHEREAS the lands comprising the entire revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills in the Devicolam taluk of the Kottayam district had been given on lease by the then Poonjar Chief to late Mr. John Daniel Munroe of London and Peermade on the 11th day of July, 1877, for coffee cultivation;
AND WHEREAS the right, title and interest of the lessor had been assumed by the former Government of Travancore; AND WHEREAS by such assumption the lands have become the property of the former Government of Travancore; AND WHEREAS the Government of Kerala have become the successor to the former Government of Travancore;
AND WHEREAS large extent of agricultural lands in that village has not been converted into plantations or utilised for purposes of plantation and such lands are not required for the purposes of the existing plantation;
AND WHEREAS the Government consider that such agricultural lands should be resumed for the distribution thereof for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto ” [Underline supplied]
21. As per Section 1(2) of the KDH Act, it is deemed to have come into force on 21.01.1971. As per Section 1(3) of the Act, it applies to the land comprising the revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills in the Devicolam Taluk. The reading of the preamble of the KDH Act, extracted above, would show that lands comprising the entire revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills Village in the Devicolam taluk will come under the notification, as it was leased out by the then Poonjar Chief to late Mr. John Daniel Munroe of London and Peermade. As per the preamble, no land in the revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills was exempted from lease to be treated as not coming under the KDH Act. Later, it was only the right, title and interest of the lessor that had been assumed by the former Government of Travancore, and succeeded to the Government of Kerala. It is worth to note that the word ‘possession’ is conspicuously absent in the preamble of the KDH Act, while stating that the right, title and interest of the lessor had been assumed by the former Government of Travancore. It is Section 3 of the KDH Act, takes care of the vesting of possession of the land.
22. As noted above, Section 3 of the KDH Act deals with the vesting of possession of all lands situated in Kannan Devan Village in the Government. As per Section 3(1) of the KDH Act, except the land that were exempted under the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the possession of all lands situate in the Kannan Devan Hills village in the Devikulam taluk of the Kottayam district shall stand transferred to and vest in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the lessees and all other persons, including rights of mortgagees and holders of encumbrances, in respect of such lands, shall stand extinguished. The exemptions provided in Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 are (a) plantations, other than plantations belonging to trespassers; (b) buildings, other than buildings belonging to trespassers, and lands appurtenant to, and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of, such buildings; (c) play-grounds and burial and burning grounds; and (d) lands in the possession of the Central Government or any State Government or the Kerala State Electricity Board. Similarly, Sub-Section 3 of Section 3 exempts so much extent of land held by a lessee under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto.
23. Section 9 of the KDH Act takes care of the assignment of such lands, possession of which is vested with the Government under Section 3(1) of the KDH Act. A reading of Section 9(2) of the KDH Act would make it clear that the power to assign the land vested in the Government under the provisions of the said Act is on the Government and such power can be delegated by notification in the Gazette to the District Collector. Therefore, it is clear that if the property is part of the vested land under the KDH Act, then the provisions of the KDH Act and Rules made thereunder would apply for the assignment of the said land, unless they fall under the exempted lands mentioned in Sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Section 3 of the KDH Act.
24. In the judgment dated 24.03.2025 in W.A.No.1604 of 2015, we have considered the issue of cancellation of the Patta issued by the Tahsildar, under the provisions of the KLA Act, since it was later found that the land is situated in Kannan Devan Village and is governed by the provisions of the KDH Act. After considering the relevant provisions under the KDH Act, as well as under the KLA Act, we held that the land in question in that case will not fall under the exemption provided in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the KDH Act. In paragraph 14 of the said judgment, we held as under:
“14. The property covered in Ext.P3 patta is situated within the area wherein KDH Act is made applicable by the Government with effect from 21.7.1971. While going through the pleadings in the writ petition in the light of Section 3 of KDH Act it is evident that the land in question will not fall under the exemptions provided in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the KDH Act. Therefore, the the provisions applicable for assignment of the land in question on the date of issuance of patta was the KDH Act and the Rules made thereunder. But, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, Ext P3 patta was issued to the appellant by Additional Tahsildar who is an incompetent officer under KDH Act to assign the land. He is incompetent to assign the land under the KLA Act also. Therefore, the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Devikulam is justified in cancelling Ext.P3 patta by virtue of Ext P13 proceedings. No irregularity or illegality could be pointed out in the said proceedings of the 3rd respondent”.
25. In the instant case, the petitioner also claims that he obtained Ext.P3 patta by following the procedure prescribed under the KLA Act and not under the KDH Act. In the review petition, he contends that since the survey number of the property claimed by him is not included in Annexure A notification issued under Section 6(2) of the KDH Act, the authority to assign the land is the Tahsildar under the KLA Act, and not the District Collector under the KDH Act. Section 6 of the KDH Act, reads thus:
“6. Demarcation of boundaries. - (1) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Collector shall cause the boundaries of each parcel of land, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3, to be demarcated.
(2) As soon as may be after the demarcation of the boundaries of a parcel of land under sub-section (1), the Collector shall publish a notification in such manner as may be prescribed specifying the extent, identity and such other particulars as may be prescribed of such land.
(3) Where the possession of a portion of a parcel of land is restored under section 4, or the alteration of the boundaries of a parcel of land is necessary consequent on the order of the Land Board under section 7, the Collector shall cause the boundaries of the remaining portion of such parcel of land or such parcel of land, as the case may be, to be re-demarcated and shall also publish a notification of such re-demarcation under sub-section (2)”.
26. The claim of the petitioner is that the property falls under Section 3(2)(d) of the KDH Act. As noticed hereinabove, the KDH Act is made applicable by the Government with effect from 21.01.1971 to the land situated within the entire erstwhile Kannan Devan Hills village, except the properties covered under Section 3(2) and 3(3)of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that under Section 3(2)(d) of the KDH Act, what is mentioned is lands in the ‘possession’ of the Central Government or the State Government, or the Kerala State Electricity Board. The possession mentioned in Section 3 (2)(d) of the KDH Act cannot be termed as symbolic possession, but direct possession, when the wording of the Act is plain and clear. The claim of the petitioner herein is that the land was in the possession of the petitioner and his predecessors for more than 50 years. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that it falls under Section 3 (2)(d) of the KDH Act, simply by relying on the fact that it is not included in Annexure A notification.
27. It is also worth to note at this juncture that in the judgment, this Court has not only considered the authority of the Tahsildar to issue patta to the petitioner, but also considered the fact that the petitioner has not produced any document to prove his claim of possession from the date pleaded in the writ petition.
28. The upshot of the above discussion is that the contentions of the petitioner now raised in this review petition are nothing but an attempt to overcome the judgment already pronounced against him, or in other words, it is an appeal in disguise. Hence, we find no merit in the review petition.
29. Now coming to the question of filing of review petition through another counsel, who was not agitating the cause in the original proceedings, is concerned, the Apex Court in N.Raju Reddiar [(1997) (9) SCC 736] held thus:
“1. It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate on Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S. U. K. Sugar has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that Court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not conductive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession”.
(Underline supplied)
30. In M. Poornachandran [(1996) 6 SCC 755] the Apex Court held thus:
“The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate on Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The Review Petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhary who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That part, he has not obtained "No Objection Certificate" from the Advocate on Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact the Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No Objection Certificate" would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate on Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter”.
31. Be that as it may, since we have already found that the review petition filed by the petitioner has no merits, we are not proposing to enter into a finding regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to file a review petition by engaging another counsel, since the law is well settled on this point, as evident from the judgments referred to supra.
32. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to entertain this review petition.
In the result, the review petition is dismissed.
