SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Ker) 355

Judges : RADHAKRISHNA MENON
STATE OF KERALA - Appellant
Versus
MOSES BHASKARAN - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 481 of 1985
Decided On : 08/03/1987
Advocates Appeared :
Government Pleader; For Petitioner Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair; For Respondent

Each acquisition should be considered as a unit for determining excess land under S.87 KLR Act.

Headnote:

S.87 KLR Act - Excess Land Determination - The court considered the method for determining excess land under S.87 KLR Act, emphasizing that each acquisition should be treated as a unit for the purpose of determining the excess land. The court set aside the order and remanded the case to the Taluk Land Board for a de novo consideration, instructing them to treat each acquisition as a unit for determining the excess land.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent acquired certain lands by purchase after 1-1-1970. The Taluk Land Board disposed of the S. M. proceedings initiated under S.87 KLR Act, but the State challenged the order, arguing that the method for determining excess land was not considered correctly.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Taluk Land Board did not consider the issue in the right perspective and set aside the order, remanding the case for a de novo consideration. The court instructed the Taluk Land Board to treat each acquisition as a unit for determining the excess land.

Issues: The method for determining excess land under S.87 KLR Act and the correct perspective for considering the issue by the Taluk Land Board.

Ratio Decidendi: Each acquisition should be treated as a unit for the purpose of determining the excess land under S.87 KLR Act.

Final Decision: The order under challenge was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Taluk Land Board for a de novo consideration, with instructions to treat each acquisition as a unit for determining the excess land.

Judgment :-

1. The State is the revision petitioner. The order under challenge is one by which the Taluk Land Board has disposed of the S. M. proceedings initiated under S.87 KLR Act.

2. It is not disputed that the respondent after 1-1-1970 has acquired certain lands, by purchase. These purchases are of various dates. Certain properties have also been disposed of by the respondent during the relevant period.

3. The question arising for consideration is, what is the method that should be adopted to determine the excess land in cases like the one on band? A reference in this connection to S.87 is profitable.

4. S.87 provides that where any person acquires any land after 1-1-1970 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed. That means in consequence of an acquisition made after 1-1-1970 if the total extent of land owned or held by the acquirer exceeds the ceiling area, then he is bound to surrender the excess land. While determining the ceiling area the sales effected after the date of acquisition but before the date of the determination of the excess land, is liable to be ignored. That means only the sales effected prior to the date of acquisition within the meaning of S.87 are liable to be excluded from the purview of the proceedings. This is the method that should be adopted in determining the excess land under S.87. The intention of the legislature thus is clear that under S.87 any number of proceedings to determine the excess land held by a person can be initiated depending upon the number of acquisitions the person may have provided the said acquisitions satisfy the requirements provided thereunder. Each acquisition therefore has to be considered as a unit for the purpose of determining the excess land.

5. On going through the order I am satisfied that the Taluk Land Board has not considered the issue in the right perspective and therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the case is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for a de novo consideration. The Taluk Land Board will keep the observations contained in this order in view while deciding the issues. It is made clear that while determining the excess land the Taluk Land Board shall treat each acquisition as a unit for the purpose of determining the excess land. In other words the date of acquisition and the position regarding the ceiling area as on that day has to be taken into account while determining the question pertaining to the excess land.

The CRP is allowed in the manner indicated above. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top