Revisional jurisdiction limited to questions of law, with High Court barred from reappraising facts beyond statutory limits.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is limited to errors involving a question of law decided, or left undecided, by the appellate authority or Land Board. Where no question of law was formulated or found to have been wrongly decided or omitted, the High Court could not reassess factual findings or disturb concurrent orders below. The text states that the High Court exceeded the statutory limits of revision by reappraising the evidence and interfering with the decisions of the Land Tribunal and appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in revision under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 without a formulation or decision of any question of law by the Tribunal or appellate authority.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 103 is confined to cases where the appellate authority or the Land Board has either decided a question of law erroneously or failed to decide a question of law. The impugned order did not formulate any question of law and contained no finding that any such question had been wrongly decided or left undecided. The High Court, therefore, went beyond the statutory limits of its revisional jurisdiction in reappraising the factual position and interfering with the concurrent orders below.

Conclusion: The High Court acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority.

---