Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, I.D. DUA, H.R. KHANNA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
The Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. etc. Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala and others, etc., Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 117, 132, to 134, 149, 167, 168 209 and 516 of 1970, D/- 28-4-1972.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 31-A (20),226 & 31-A - Amendment Act of 1969 - Section 2 (44),81,81(1)(k)(m) - Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act – Section 2(6) - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Suit for land – Commercial land – Agricultural land - Petitioner company owns a block of land in extent out of which were planted with rubber trees, pepper, arecanut, cocoanut, paddy, nutmeg and fruit trees, rest being jungle and waste - Petitioner a citizen, owns land in taluk consisting under cocoanut, paddy land and dry land - He also leased of land to tenants - He owns jointly with his brother an arecanut garden coconut plantation of and cashew plantation - Whether agricultural or not and to be used for purposes, some of which would not come under agrarian reform – Held, it was for petitioners to establish that lands held by them and mentioned in petitions were not estates so that they could be out of purview of Act - It was all more necessary for them to do so in view of categorical findings of Full Bench of Kerala High Court in of judgment in Narayanan Nairs case, AIR 1971 Kerala 98 (FB) (supra) - Lands which are interspersed between sites of commercial undertakings and house site in municipalities with lands surrounding them are not agricultural lands fit for acquisition under the Act - In the result, court hold that save that provisions of the Act making discrimination against pepper and areca plantations are bad only if lands are not estates and that lands interspersed between sites of commercial undertakings and house sites in municipalities with lands surrounding them cannot be acquired as the same are not agricultural lands - Except as above the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are beyond challenge - Order accordingly.
Judgment
MITTER, J.:- This is a group of nine writ petitions challenging the vires of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act of 1964) as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) with the object of preventing the State from acquiring lands in the possession of the petitioners in excess of the ceilings imposed thereunder.
2. The details of the holdings of the petitioners are briefly as follows:
Writ Petition No. 117/1970.
3. Petitioner company owns a block of land Ac. 2313-00 in extent out of which Ac. 1818-00 were planted with rubber trees, Ac. 30-00 with pepper, Ac. 5-50 with arecanut, Ac. 260-00 under cocoanut, Ac. 12-50 under paddy, Ac. 25-00 under nutmeg and fruit trees, the rest being jungle and waste.
Writ Petition no. 132/70.
4. Petitioner a citizen, owns land in Kasargod taluk consisting of Ac. 21-00 under cocoanut, Ac. 6-00 paddy land and Ac. 34-00 dry land. He also leased out Ac. 91-00 of land to tenants. He owns jointly with his brother an arecanut garden of Ac. 5-50 cocoanut plantation of Ac. 49-00 and cashew plantation of Ac. 25-00.
Writ Petition No. 133/1970.
5. Petitioner owned lands in Kasargod taluk Ac. 9-94 in extent which has been usufructuarily mortgaged for a long time.
Writ Petition No. 134/1970.
6. Petitioner is a ryotwari pattadar holding peppar garden Ac. 30-00 aracanut Ac. 45-00, rubber estate Ac. 445-00 cashew plantation Ac. 25-00, cocoanut garden Ac. 44-00 and paddy lands of Ac. 2-00, all under personal cultivation. He has also leased out Act. 673-00 of dry land to tenants. Besides the above the cultivates as lessee Ac. 56-00 of pepper garden and owns with his brother Ac. 22-00 of pepper garden and arecanut garden etc. He also owns with other members of his family Ac. 19-00 of land set apart and used as dairy farm.
W. P. No. 137/1970
7. Petitioner is a matadhipati in Kasargod taulk; extent of lands: Ac. 348-00 of paddy, Ac. 114-00 of garden land under cocoanut and arecanut, Ac. 69-00 leased out to tenants and Ac. 219-00 of dry land bearing cashew etc. are also leased out.
W. P. No. 149/1970
8. The two petitioners owned Ac. 95-00 of land in District of Trichur. They also owned Ac. 58-00 in Village Azhikkode and Ac. 154-00 in Village Kadappuram and all the lands are used for cocoanut plantation. It is stated in Paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioners have employed a large number of kudikidappukarans either as watchmen or workers to look after the lands.
W. P. No. 167/70.
9. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and Petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder. Petitioner owns rubber plantations of Ac. 22-00 cashew Ac. 65-00, pepper Ac. 16-00, areacanut Ac. 58-00, cocoanut Ac. 13-00 paddy land Ac. 5-50, cardamom Ac. 305-00, cocoanut Ac. 5-50, teak Ac. 36-00, eucalyptus Ac. 530-00.
W. P. No. 168/1970
10. Petitioner owns Ac. 3888-00 of which Ac. 3000-00 are private forest and Ac. 400-00 under rubber. There are also cocoanut gardens, arecanut gardens, teak and eucalyptus plantations.
W. P. No. 207/70.
11. Petitioner owns lands in Kasargod taulk in excess of the ceiling area.
W. P. No. 516/70.
12. The petitioner owns Ac. 2-60 of land out of which Ac. 1-21 is his residential compound containing several buildings. He also owns Ac. 1-84 of paddy land in his direct possession besides a few tenants holding property under him. In the said land of Ac. 2-69 there are nine kudikidappukars (respondents 3 to 110 to each of whom he will have to transfer 10 cents of land if Section 80-A of the Act is enforced. The buildings occupied by these respondents do not lie close to one another but are spread all over the property and parceling out 10 cents of land to each of them in terms of the provisions of the Act with valuable cocoanut tress will destroy the utility of the petitioner s property permanently. According to the petition the Act in so far as it makes provision for the compulsory transfer of lands under the petitioner s personal cultivation to kudikidappukar is not a law of acquisition wit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
