Judges : U.L.BHAT
MADHAVAN - Appellant
Versus
ASST.CUSTODIAN - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 1555 of 1984-D
Decided On : 06/19/1985
Advocates Appeared :
G. Mohan; For Petitioner Central Government Pleader; For Respondents
Land Tribunal - Kerala Land Reforms Act - S.72B, S.72, S.3(1) - The court discussed the application of S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the exemption in S.3(1) to a lease belonging to the Government of India. The court interpreted the provisions and held that the lease in favor of the petitioner is covered by the exemption under S.3(1) (i) of the Act, and the provisions regarding tenancies will not be available for the benefit of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a case against the Assistant Custodian and the Government of Kerala seeking assignment of the landlord's interest under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground of exemption under S.3(1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease in favor of the petitioner is covered by the exemption under S.3(1) (i) of the Act, and the provisions regarding tenancies will not be available for the benefit of the petitioner. The impugned orders were upheld.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to the lease in favor of the petitioner, considering the exemption under S.3(1) (i) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lease in favor of the petitioner is covered by the exemption under S.3(1) (i) of the Act, and the provisions regarding tenancies will not be available for the benefit of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
1. First respondent is the Assistant Custodian. Office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the second respondent is the Government of Kerala. Petitioner herein filed O A. 908 of 1976 against the respondents in the Land Tribunal. Tellicherry under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 1963 (for short 'the Act') contending that he is the tenant of the property mentioned therein under the first respondent and seeking assignment of the right. title and interest of the landlord which has vested in the Government under S 72 of the Act. The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the lease under which the petitioner claims falls within the exemption in S.3(1) of the Act and therefore no provision in Chapter II (including S.72) of the Act would apply to the lease or to the petitioner. This contention has been accepted by the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority and the application for purchase has been dismissed. These orders are now challenged.
2. Revision petitioner was formerly holding the land involved in this case under two ladies by name Raviyatb and Pathutty who were declared as evacuees and the property was declared as evacuee property under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 1950. The property consequently vested in the Custodian under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The Tribunal and the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that the right. title and interest of the original landlords have come to vest in the Government of India. This is not challenged by the revision petitioner. In fact. learned counsel for the revision petitioner also proceeded on the basis that the present landlord is the Government of India. There is no dispute that the lease in favour of the petitioner came into existence as early as in 1932.
3. Chapter II of the Act contains provisions regarding tenancies. Revision petitioner. as a tenant. claims that he is entitled to purchase landlord's interest under S.72B of the Act. S.72 and the connected provisions are provisions in Chapter II of the Act. S.3 is the provision dealing with exemptions. Clause (i) of sub-sec. (1) of S.3 states that nothing in this chapter shall apply to lease of lands or of buildings or of both belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala or the Government of any other State in India or the Government of India or a local authority or the Cochin Port Trust or a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of Kerala or the Government of any other State in India or the Government of India The proviso has no bearing on the facts of the case. This provision makes it clear that Chapter II will not apply to lease of land or building belonging to or vested in the Government of India. Revision petitioner accepts that the land involved in the case of which he is a tenant belongs to Government of India. There can therefore be no doubt that clause (i) of sub-sec. (1) of S.3 would apply to the lease in favour of the petitioner. To such a lease. S.72 and the allied provisions of Chapter II would not apply.
4. The revision petitioner placed reliance on Explanation I to the above provision. The explanation reads as follows:
"Explanation I. 'Lands belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala' shall. for the purposes of this clause. have the same meaning as 'Government lands' under subsection (1) of S.2 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act. 1960 but leases subsisting at the commencement of this Act of lands escheated to the Government shall not be deemed to be leases of lands belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala if the lessees or their predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the lands at the time of escheat as tenants under leases whether current or time-expired".
5. The explanation consists of two parts. First part explains what is meant by the reference in clause (i) to "lands belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala." For the purpose of this
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.