Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Ramaswamy and K.S. Paripoornan

ORDER

K.S. Paripoornan, J.

1. 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, rendered 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 are 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 impleadment under Section 85(b) 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 impleadment 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. 447/77 (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 or 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 tenancy 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 provision of the Act. It cannot be said that the Taluk Land Board has either decided erroneously or failed to decide a question of law to attract Section