Chettian Veetil Ammad: C. Mathew: Jayashree Tea And Industries LTD. : Ravi Karuna Karan: E. V. Paul: P. A. Sivasubramonian: V. G. Kuriakose: C. A. Venkatachallam Chettiar: Subhadra: Varghese Mariam: P. J. Vetrivel: P. M. Kuruvilla: Thomas Kuriyan: P. Ku vs Taluk Land Board: State Of Kerala: Taluk Land Board: Taluk Land Board: Taluk Land Board: State Of Kerala: Taluk Land Board: Taluk Land Board: State Of Kerala: Taluk Land Board: State Of Kerala: State Of Kerala: Tahsildar: Taluk Land Board: State Of Kerala

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1979 Supreme(SC) 280

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. SHINGHAL AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Chettiam Veettil Ammed and another, etc. etc. Appellants
Versus
Taluk Land Board and others, etc. etc. Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1015 of 1976, 1023, 2811, 40, 143, 1309, 1863, 2070, 2584 to 2587, 2623 of 1977; 574-575, 290, 362, 882, 227, 879 of 1978; 869 to 878, 881, 883 to 886, 889, 890, 894 to 903 and 1019 of 1979, D/- 2-5-1979.

Advocates:
A.N.Karkhanis, A.S.NAMBIYAR, ANANT KRISHNAN, C.K.BHARATHAN, C.S.A.IYER, F.S.NARIMAN, G.B.PAI, G.GOVINDAN NAIR, J.SANTHALINGAM, K.D.NAMBUDIRY, K.J.JOHN, K.JOSEPH, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.M.NAYAR, K.N.BHATT, K.R.NAMBIAR, K.S.Ramamurthy, K.T.Harindernath, M.C.BHANDARE, M.C.CHAGLA, M.K.D.NAMBUDIRY, M.M.ABDUL KHADER, M.PODVAL, Mathai M.Paikeday, N.SUDHAKARAN, P.A.Francis, P.Burman, P.GOVINDAN NAYAR, P.K.PALLI, P.SANTHALINGAM, S.B.SAHARYA, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.Bhandan, S.GOPALAKRISHNA IYER, Saroja Gopalakrishnan, T.C.RAGHAVAN, T.R.G.VARIYAR, T.T.KUNHIKANNAN, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD, V.J.Francis, V.K.VARMA, Y.J.FRANCIS

Headnote:
Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 – Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Section 84, 85, 81, 72 – Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962 – Exemption – Whether lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964 and January 1, 1970 qualify for exemption under Section 81 (1) (a) of the Act – Whether a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under Section 72K of the Act is binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act – Held, It will not therefore be permissible for the Board to disregard the evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase merely on the ground that it has not been issued on a proper appreciation or consideration of the evidence on record, or that the. Tribunals finding suffers from any procedural error. – What sub-section (2) of Section 72-K provides is an irrebuttable presumption of law, and it may will be regarded as a rule of substantive law. – But even so, for reasons already stated, it does not thereby take away the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board to make an order under Section 85 (5) after taking into consideration the "conclusive" evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase according to Section 72-K (2) as far as it goes. – Court is therefore of the opinion that the view taken in Kunjanujan Thampuran v. Taluk Land Board 1976 Ker LT 716 is not quite correct. – While the High Court was justified in taking the view that the scope of the enquiry in the Taluk Land Board is that relating to the surplus land with which the Land Tribunal is not concerned, the certificate of purchase has its own "conclusive evidentiary value to the extent provided in Section 72-K (2) in proceedings before the Taluk Land Board. – It will therefore be for the Board to arrive at its own decision under sub-section (5) of Section 85, according to the law, and it will be permissible for it to examine, where necessary, whether the certificate is inaccurate on its face, or has been obtained by fraud or collusion. – Court find however, that no such question was raised for the consideration of the High Court, where the controversy was confined to the genuineness of the lease, and we are therefore not required to examine the abstract point of law set out by Mr. Bhandare. – It will be sufficient for us to say that the ancillary argument can easily be answered in the light of our decision on point No. 2 if and when it arises for consideration in a given case, for the function of the Board is to determine the extent and the identity of the land to be surrendered and not matters relating to the issue of a certificate of purchase. – If a certificate of purchase has a bearing on what the Board is called upon to decide, court have no doubt that the Board will take it into consideration, if it is produced for its consideration, with due regard to the evidentiary value assigned to it under Section 72-K (2) in the light of the decision on point No. 2. – It is true that the intention of the legislature cannot be ascertained from any statement by way of a note on the clauses of a Bill or breviate and, as has been stated, the duty of the court is to find the natural meaning of the words in a statute, in the context in which they are used, but it has always been considered permissible, and even desirable, for a court, while interpreting a statute, to take note to the history of the statute and the circumstances in which it was passed or the mischief at which it was directed. – The reason is that the meaning which is to be given to a statute should be such as will carry out its object. – If sub-section (3) of Section 84 is examined with due regard to all these factors, it will appear that, as has plainly been stated in it, the "ceiling area referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of that section for examining the question of the validity of the transfers made after September 15, 1963 is the reduced "ceiling area" specified by the Amending Act of 1969. – Court is therefore satisfied that the view taken in Narayana Pattar v. State of Kerala, 1977 Ker LT 64 in this respect is quite correct – Order Accordingly

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The Supreme Court held that it is not permissible for the Taluk Land Board to disregard the evidentiary value of a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal merely on the grounds of procedural error or lack of proper appreciation of evidence; the certificate serves as an irrebuttable presumption of law regarding the assignment of rights, though the Board retains jurisdiction to examine the certificate for inaccuracies on its face or fraud (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the reference to "the commencement of this Act" in Section 82(4) refers to the date that specific provision came into force (April 1, 1964), not the date of the Amending Act of 1971 (January 1, 1970); therefore, lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964, and January 1, 1970, qualify for exemption under Section 81(1)(a) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [p_89

Judgment

SHINGHAL, J.:- The learned counsel for the appellants have categorically stated at the Bar that no question relating to the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), hereafter referred to as the Act, or any of its provisions, arises in these appeals by special leave. We have heard them together virtually as companion appeals at the instance of learned counsel for they arise out of several judgments of the High Court of Kerala in matters relating to the implementation of the provisions for the restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area and the disposal of excess land. These are the subject-matter of Chapter III of the Act, as amended from time to time. It is not necessary to refer to the dates of all the judgments of the High Court of Kerala, or to all the points of controversy there, as learned counsel have been able to channelise their arguments into three main points of controversy, which have been argued at length. It is true that all these points do not arise in all the cases before us, and some learned counsel have raised additional arguments in the peculiar facts and circumstances of their cases. It will therefore be convenient and proper to deal with the three main points first, and to take up the additional points for consideration with reference to the appeals in which they have been raised for our consideration. This, it is agreed, will be a proper and a fair course to adopt for the disposal of these appeals. It is also agreed by learned counsel that the other appeals in which such additional points have not been raised shall stand decided according to our decision on the three main points.

2. In order to understand the controversy in its proper perspective, it may be mentioned that, as in the other States in the country, the Kerala State Legislature felt the necessity of making comprehensive land reforms in the State. The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act 4 of 1961) was accordingly passed, and received the assent of the President on January 21, 1961. Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect from February 15, 1961. This Court struck down that Act as unconstitutional in its application to the ryotwari lands of Hosdrug and Kasaragod taluks. The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, was then passed for the temporary protection of tenants in these taluks. The State High Court declared it null and void in its application to the ryotwari lands of the Malabar area and most of the lands of Travancore area. So the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1963, was passed to provide some protection to tenants. It was an interim legislation. Even so it repealed the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, and suspended the operation of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960.

3. After re-examining the requirements in the filed of land reforms as a whole, the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, was published in State Gazette on September 15, 1963. It covered a vide field in the matter of land reforms and, inter alia, provided for the imposition of a ceiling on holdings of lands, the surrender of excess lands, grant of compensation therefore, and the assignment of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order of priority mentioned in the Bill, collection of purchase price, constitution of Land Tribunals and Land Board etc. The Bill was enacted as the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), and received the assent of the President on December 31, 1963. It was amended extensively, and in several material particulars, by Act 35 of 1969, and then by Act 25 of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972. There were other amendments also, but it is agreed that they do not bear on the controversy before us.

4. The three main points of controversy in these appeals have been formulated by learned counsel for the appellants as follows :-

1. Whether lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1979 Supreme(SC) 280

Cases Referred (2)