JUDGMENT

SHINGHAL, J.:—Civil Appeals Nos. 907, 908 and 909 of 1974 are by the State of Kerala and the Land Board, Trivandrum. They are directed against a common judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 27, 1973. Civil Appeals Nos. 1354 and 1355 of 1975 are by petitioners who had applied for revision of the orders of the Taluk Land Board, Alathur, dated June 11, 1974 and April 27, 1974. The High Court dismissed the revision petitions by two separate judgments dated July 9, 1975 and June 18, 1975. All the appeals are by special leave. We have heard them together at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties, and will examine them in a common judgment.

2. The controversy in all the cases relates to the application of certain provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the impugned voluntary transfers of Kayal lands. The State of Kerala feels aggrieved because the High Court has taken the view that the transfers made between September 15, 1963 and January 1, 1970 had to be "recognised and Kayal lands comprised therein excluded in reckoning the ceiling area and the excess lands to be surrendered after January 1, 1970." The grievance of the other two appellants is that their revision petitions were dismissed even though the gift deeds in their favour were valid and did not fall within the mischief of Section 84 (1) of the Act. We shall examine these points of controversy but, before doing so, it may be mentioned that the validity of certain provisions of the Act was also challenged in the High Court. In the three petitions which were disposed of by the common judgment dated July 27, 1973, but the High Court upheld them. There is no such controversy before us as the Act, and the Acts which have amended it, have been specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. It may also be mentioned that we have not had the advantage of hearing any one on behalf of the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 907 to 909 of 1974 as Miss Lily Thomas, who represented the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 908 and 909, informed the Court, at the commencement of the arguments, that they were not interested in the controversy.

3. While examining the petitions which are the subject-matter of Appeals Nos. 907 to 909 of 1974, the High Court thought it sufficient to refer only to the facts of Original Petition No. 283 of 1973. That case is not before us, but that would not matter as the appeals can be disposed of without reference to the details of that case. It will be sufficient to say that the petitioner in that case was M. T. Joseph, and the controversy centered round a settlement deed (Ex. P 8) made by him in favour of his children on June 15, 1957. The appellants in the three appeals (Nos. 907-909) are M. T. Josephs children.

4. As has been stated, the High Court examined the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act and upheld them. It next examined the question whether lands in excess of the ceiling area were in the lawful or permissive occupation of the petitioners (in the petition before the High Court), with reference to the argument that in view of the terms of Ex. R 1, by which some of the excess lands were assigned to the holder, the occupation commenced with an implied permission on payment of the state dues. The High Court did not however think it proper to express its final views on that aspect of the matter as it found that certain proceedings were pending before the authorities concerned. It therefore left the matter after giving the direction that the Land Board will not pursue the proceedings in respect of those lands until the matter was finally decided in the pending proceedings. So also, the High Court left the question regarding the ownership of the lands which had been conveyed by the settlement deed of 1957, for investigation and decision by the Land Board.

5. The High Court however proceeded to examine the validity of certain transfers of lands between September 15,