1976 Supreme(SC) 465

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
The State of Kerala and another, Appellants
Versus
M. T. Joseph (dead) by Lrs etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 587-586 and 598-600 of 1976,
D/- 25-11-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Abdul Khader, Advocate General, (Mr. K. M. K. Nair, Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.K. Pillai, Advocate with him for Respondents. Excepting Respondent No. 7 in Civil Appeal No.587 of 1976.

Headnote:

Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Act, 1960 – Section 8 - Possession of certain tracts of land – Claim of compensation - Whether land could be acquired by adverse possession by a likeness of allotters of land from the Government under scheme for its reclamation - Whether Kerala High Court had correctly interpreted and applied Section 8 of Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Act, 1960 to cases before court – Whether by an application of Section 8 of Act whole land is to be treated as a single unit belonging or dispositions made under the deed of settlement executed by him on June distributing the land among his children resulted in separate units for purposes of compensation for land surrendered - Facts upon which the provision was sought to be applied are these On October Government of Travancore sanctioned a scheme for the reclamation of Lake upon terms and conditions which were set forth in a document dated October - Agreement provided that one and his father on payment of which were to be recovered in ten equal installments would be given possession of certain tracts of land which they undertook to reclaim - For the first two years after what is called Registry of the names of two lessees no tax was to be levied – Registry was liable to be cancelled if adequate progress was not made within these two years. It appears that the agreement was modified by an order dated February and a fresh agreement was executed in July who entered into possession of land constructed the ring bunds at considerable expense, and brought very large tracts of land to be reclaimed under paddy cultivation - In June 1957 executed a deed of settlement of all this land after he had acquired full ownership rights fulfilling the terms of the agreement - Act which is sought to be now applied was then passed - After that Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 was passed so that State Land Board started proceedings for the surrender of these lands in accordance with provisions of the Land Reforms Act – Held, It is clear to us that this term in the agreement operated as a restraint upon the alienation of rights only so long as all the amounts due to the Government had not been paid up - Whole amount had to be paid up in ten yearly installments – Furthermore as Kerala High Court found settlement of land on June had not merely been given effect to by a mutation in the relevant Government records but pattas had actually been given by the Government acting upon settlement in favor of the children - Hence it could not be said that there was any patta or other document containing any condition to which Section 8 of Act could apply - Court find from judgment under appeal that several questions which have no real bearing on the rights of the parties were also argued - One of these questions was whether land could be acquired by adverse possession by alieness of the allottees of the land from the Government under the scheme for its reclamation - Court fail to see how a question of adverse possession arises here when Government itself recognizes rights of the children in pattas executed by it in their favor - High Court recorded the following findings about the Government acting on the terms of the settlement of June correctness of which had not been challenged before court - This settlement deed has been recognized by Government mutation has been effected in the names of children and pattahs have also been issued to them - It has been further stated on behalf of the revision petitioners that levy under the Kerala Rice and Paddy Order, 1966 has been collected from each of shares under deed that land tax has been imposed on each of shares separately and agricultural income-tax collected on the income of properties of each of sharers - Court do not think it is necessary to go into any other question - High Court was of opinion that some facts had still to be ascertained when the case goes back to Land Board of proceeding on the footing determined by the High Court - Court think that we should make it clear that matters to be still determined could not in view of our finding involve determination of any question of adverse possession of the claimants children - Appeals dismissed