Back
1981 Supreme(Ker) 74
Judges : K.BHASKARAN
GOPALAN NAIR - Appellant
Versus
TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 3331 of 1979-A
Decided On : 03/26/1981
Advocates Appeared :
V.M. Kurian; K.K. Gangadharan; A.V. Thomas; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of proviso (b) to sub-section (1A) of S.84 should not be restricted to cases where the land surrendered to the Government had been assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act, and the person seeking restoration of ownership or possession would not be entitled to that relief if the land had already been assigned on registry under S.96 before the commencement of the Amendment Act.
Headnote:
Land Reforms - Ceiling Limit - S.84(1A) - S.96 - S.85(2) - Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 - [Ceiling Limit] - [S.84(1A), S.96, S.85(2)] - The court discussed the provisions of S.84(1A) and S.96 in the context of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and interpreted the legislative intent and the scheme of the Act. The court emphasized that the application of proviso (b) to sub-section (1A) of S.84 could not be restricted to cases where the very land which had been the subject-matter of the gift deed had been surrendered to the Government and had been assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act. The court also highlighted the practical difficulty in resuming the land assigned on registry under S.96 and concluded that the person seeking restoration of ownership or possession would not be entitled to that relief if the land had already been assigned on registry under S.96 before the commencement of the Amendment Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Taluk Land Board directed the revision petitioner to surrender 0.62 acre of dry land found to have been held by him in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under S.82(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The petitioner later filed an application for restoration of ownership or possession of the surplus land assumed possession from him. The Taluk Land Board dismissed the application, leading to the revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of restoration of ownership or possession as the land had already been assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act before the commencement of the Amendment Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of S.84(1A) and S.96 in the context of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the entitlement of the petitioner to restoration of ownership or possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application of proviso (b) to sub-section (1A) of S.84 could not be restricted to cases where the land surrendered to the Government had been assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act. The court also emphasized the practical difficulty in resuming the land assigned on registry under S.96.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of restoration of ownership or possession. No order as to costs was made.
1. The first respondent,the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba, bad by its order dated 17-3-1976 made in its proceedings No. TLB. 676/ 73 (TBA) directed the revision petitioner (the declarant) who had tiled a statement under S.85 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (the Act), to surrender to the Government 0.62 acre of dry land found to have been held by him in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under S.82(1) of the Act.
2. The petitioner having surrendered 0.62 acre of land to the 2nd respondent, the Tahsildar, Taliparamba, on 23-4-1976 in obedience to the said order dated 17-3-1976 passed by the Taluk Land Board, he later on filed before the Taluk Land Board an application in Form 7A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 (the Rules), under sub-section (10) of S 85 incorporated by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (Act 27 of 1979) (the Amendment Act) for restoration of ownership or possession or both of the surplus land assumed possession from him. The Taluk Land Board recording a finding that the land assumed possession by the Tahsildar from the petitioner had already been assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 8 of 1979, which came into force on 7-7-1979, dismissed the application. It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the application this revision has been preferred by the declarant.
3. Sri V. M. Kurian, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the view taken by the Taluk Land Board was not sustainable. According to him the bar under proviso (b) to S.84(1A) incorporated by the Amendment Act would apply only to "land which has been assigned on registry under S.96 before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979". His reasoning is that in as much as it was not the land gifted by the petitioner to his daughter on 30-10-1974 that was surrendered in pursuance of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, the bar contained in proviso (b) to S.84(1A) would not apply to the present case so as to deprive him of the benefit conferred by sub-section (1A) of S.84 incorporated by the Amendment Act. Sub-section (1A) of S.84, so far as it is relevant tor the purpose of this case, reads as follows:
"(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, any voluntary transfer effected by means of a gift deed executed during the period commencing on the 1st day of January, 1970 and ending with the 5th day of November, 1974, by the person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his predeceased son or daughter shall be not deemed to be, or ever to have been, invalid
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply
(b) in respect of any land which has been assigned on registry under S.96 before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979."
The petitioner's stand at the first flash may appear to be sound; however, on a closer scrutiny of the relevant provisions in the light of the legislative intent and the scheme of the Act, it could be found that the contention could not be sustained The identity of the land which was surrendered by the landowner before the commencement of the Amendment Act in compliance with the order of the Taluk Land Board is not the real issue. What is relevant is whether the extent of the land which formed the subject-matter of the gift or the equivalent thereof is to be deleted from the extent of land held by the petitioner for the purpose of the ceiling provisions of the Act as a result of the validation of the gift deed executed between the period 1-1-1970 and 5-11-1974. The legislature while, by the amendment, relaxed the rigidity of the dead line fixed under S.84(1) of the Act before which gifts were to be executed to be valid for the purpose of the ceiling provision
