Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
K.H. Nazar – Appellant
Versus
Mathew K. Jacob and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7699-7700 of 2019, SLP (C) Nos. 7792-7793 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2019
(a) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 2(5) and Section 81 (1) (q) - Exemption to commercial site - Whether quarry is commercial site - legislative intent of the Act - Imposition of ceiling on land holdings and distribution of excess land among landless people - A beneficial legislation - Purposive interpretation according to legislative intent - Strict construction of exclusionary provisions in a beneficial legislation to give a wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its evasion on deceptive grounds. (Para 10, 11, 12)
(b) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 81 - Commercial site - Distinction between land and site - Section 81 deals with sites speaks of house sites, temples, churches and mosques and buildings - A ‘commercial site’ is a land on which there is a structure being utilized for an industrial or commercial purpose - Held, ‘site’ cannot include vacant land including land used for quarrying. (Para 15)
(c) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 81 - Commercial site - Government can, u/s 81(3), a quarry site in public interest - Therefore if quarry is taken to be commercial site u/s 81(1)(k) there would be no necessity of provision u/s 81(3) - Overriding power conferred on Government to exempt lands from the applicability of the Act cannot be utilized for the purpose of interpretation of Section 81(1)(q) which exempts commercial sites from the purview of the Act. (Para 17)
(d) Words and Phrases - Manufacturing activity - Breaking of rock into small pieces of stone - not a manufacturing activity. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The width and amplitude of the expression ‘commercial site’ in Section 2(5) and Section 81 (1) (q) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 falls for consideration in these Appeals.
Commercial sites are exempted from the purview of the Act. The question whether a rocky land which is used for quarrying purposes can be treated as a ‘commercial site’ and thereby excluded from the applicability of the Act was answered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court by holding that mere blasting of rocks and conversion into metals does not render the area a commercial site. Twenty years after the said judgment, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court took a different view. Quarrying was held to be a commercial operation involving the process of manufacture. Hence, it was held that a quarry falls within the ambit of ‘commercial site’ and is exempted from the applicability of the Act.
The Full Bench of the High Court held by the majority that the land which is used for quarrying is not covered by the expression commercial site.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in the majority opinion of the Full Bench in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The term "commercial site" is defined as land used principally for trade, commerce, industry, manufacture or business, and is distinct from vacant land; the judgment holds that quarrying land does not fall within "commercial site" (!) (!) (!) . - Section 81 enumerates exemptions for various land types and clarifies that "sites" (like house sites, temples, buildings) are exempt, and that "commercial sites" cannot include vacant land or quarrying activities, per the majority view (!) (!) (!) . - The Court upholds the majority Full Bench decision that quarry land used for quarrying is not a commercial site and thus does not get exempted under Section 81(1)(q); the broad interpretation to include quarrying would defeat the Act’s object (!) (!) (!) . - The Act is a beneficial legislation intended to impose ceiling on land holdings and distribute excess land to landless, requiring purposive/ liberal construction to promote its objects; the Court rejects extending "commercial site" to quarry operations on the ground of environmental considerations not guiding interpretation of Sections 2(5) and 81(1)(q) (!) (!) (!) . - Government exemption under Section 81(3) cannot be used to interpret Section 81(1)(q); the overriding power cannot override the statutory definition when interpreting exemptions (!) . - The dominant principle is to avoid Procrustean literalism in welfare statutes; interpret in light of mischief addressed and desired remedy (!) (!) . - The appeals are dismissed; the majority view is upheld (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The width and amplitude of the expression ‘commercial site’ in Section 2(5) and Section 81 (1) (q) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”) falls for our consideration in these Appeals. Commercial sites are exempted from the purview of the Act. The question whether a rocky land which is used for quarrying purposes can be treated as a ‘commercial site’ and thereby excluded from the applicability of the Act was answered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court by holding that mere blasting of rocks and conversion into metals does not render the area a commercial site. K. Krishnankutty vs. State of Kerala and Others, CRP No. 1245/1975. Twenty years after the said judgment, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court took a different view. Quarrying was held to be a commercial operation involving the process of manufacture. Hence, it was held that a quarry falls within the ambit of ‘commercial site’ and is exempted from the applicability of the Act. State of Kerala vs. Mohammedali Haji, (1996) 1 KLT 584 (DB).
2. The Appellant requested environmental clearance for his quarry which was recommended in his favour by the District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) on 25.04.2017. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a Writ Petition aggrieved by the said recommendation to permit quarry on land which was a plantation site. It is relevant to note that the Appellant’s land was exempted from the realm of the Act as it was a plantation. The objection of Respondent No. 1 and 2 was that the Appellant cannot be permitted to use the land for a purpose other than plantation, especially for quarrying operations. After examining the judgments of the High Court in K. Krishnankutty vs. State of Kerala and Others (supra) and State of Kerala vs. Mohammedali Haji (supra), a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala doubted the correctness of the latter judgment in State of Kerala vs. Mohammedali Haji (supra) and referred the matter to a larger Bench.
3. The Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1 and 2 was heard by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising three Judges. The majority opinion was in favour of Respondent No. 1 and 2. It was held by the majority that the land which is used for quarrying is not covered by the expression commercial site. Therefore, there can be no exemption of such land from the applicability of the Act. The Appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court.
4. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant took us through the provisions of the Act including Sections 2(5), 81 and 83 to argue that a quarry is a commercial site, which is exempted under Section 81 (1) (q) of the Act. He alluded to the statement of objects and reasons to submit that the legislation was made to protect the interests of all stake-holders. He referred to the meaning of the words ‘commercial activities’ and ‘business’ to submit that the activity of quarrying is done for profit. Hence, quarrying is a commercial activity. According to him, there can be no distinction between activities done above and below the surface of land for the purpose of deciding whether land is a commercial site or not. He criticized the plurality opinion for erroneously invoking the mischief rule. He commended the judgment of the dissenting Judge for our acceptance. He emphasized that environmental issues are not germane for interpretation of Sections 2 (5) and 81 (1) (q) of the Act.
5. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Kerala resisted the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant by submitting that the expression ‘commercial site’ is a term of art and has to be interpreted on the basis of the context in which it is used.
6. Mr. Romy Chacko, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 asserted that the Act is a beneficial legislation. When there is a doubt about the meaning of expressions used in such a statute, lite
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
