Back
Judges : BALAKRISHNA MENON
CELINE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No 1586 of 1979
Decided On : 07/26/1981
Advocates Appeared :
Varghese Kalliath; For Petitioners Government Pleader; For Respondents
CEILING LAND - KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT 1 OF 1964 - S.85, S.86, S.87 - The court discussed the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964, particularly S.85, S.86, and S.87, which deal with the determination and surrender of excess land. The court emphasized that the liability to surrender excess land is incurred by the family on the notified date, and the legal representatives of the deceased can inherit the estate subject to this liability for surrender of excess land held by the family of which the deceased was a member. The court also highlighted the introduction of sub-section (6A) of S.85 by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 5 of 1981, which provides for the continuation of proceedings against the legal representatives of a deceased declarant who is an adult unmarried person or a sole surviving member of a family liable to surrender excess land owned or held by him on 1-1-1970.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a revision against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam, directing the surrender of excess land in the possession of the family of the deceased declarant. The facts were not in dispute, and the revision-petitioners, who were the widow and major children of the declarant, challenged the order on the grounds that the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board abated on the death of the declarant and that all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant should have been given notice and heard before final orders were passed for surrender of excess land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board was defective for want of notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant, who were all persons interested in the land to be surrendered by the widow representing the family of the deceased declarant. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Board for fresh disposal after notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant and after affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included whether the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board abated on the death of the declarant, whether all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant should have been given notice and heard before final orders were passed for surrender of excess land, and the correctness of the decision of the Taluk Land Board on various points of objections to the draft notice raised by the widow.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board was defective for want of notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant, who were all persons interested in the land to be surrendered by the widow representing the family of the deceased declarant. The court emphasized the liability to surrender excess land incurred by the family on the notified date and the introduction of sub-section (6A) of S.85 by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 5 of 1981, which provides for the continuation of proceedings against the legal representatives of a deceased declarant who is an adult unmarried person or a sole surviving member of a family liable to surrender excess land owned or held by him on 1-1-1970.
Final Decision: The C.R.P. was allowed, and the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside. The case was remanded to the Board for fresh disposal after notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant and after affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter. The objections raised by the petitioners on the merits of the case were also to be considered by the Taluk Land Board afresh.
1. This revision is against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam, dated 8-5-1979, directing the 1st petitioner to surrender 12.53.435 acres of land as excess land in the possession of her family.
2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Late Joseph, husband of the 1st petitioner submitted a ceiling return to the Land Board under S.85(2) of the Kerala Land, Reforms Act 1 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Land Board transferred the ceiling return for enquiry by the Taluk Land Board, Kothamangalam as per the provisions of sub-section (5) of S.85 of the Act. The return submitted by Joseph, (hereinafter referred to as the declarant), related to his family which on the date notified under S.83 of the Act, consisted of himself, his wife and six minor children. The declarant died on 30-6-1974 leaving behind his widow and ten children. Two of his children were majors on 1-1-1970 on the date notified under S.83 of the Act. He had eight children on the said date of whom two were majors. Two other children were born subsequent to 1-1-1970 The revision-petitioners are the widow and major children of the declarant. Petitioners 2 and 3 had attained majority before 1-1-1970 and the 4th petitioner attained majority after 1-1-1970.
3. The return submitted by the declarant relates to property owned and held by him and the ceiling area was to be fixed under S 82 of the Act with reference to the family consisting of the declarant, his wife and six minor children existing on 1-1-1970. On the death of the declarant on 30-6-1974, proceedings were continued against his widow, representing his family, and an order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 26-10-1976 for surrender of 29.24.101 acres as excess land in the possession of the family. Against this, the petitioners 1 and 2 in this C.R.P. filed C.R.P 5444 of 1976 before this Court and this Court by order dated 10-1-1978 set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and remanded the case for fresh disposal after affording the petitioners a fair and reasonable opportunity to substantiate their case. A revised order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 8-5-79, for surrender of 12.53.435 acres as excess land in the possession of the family of the deceased declarant. It is against this that the widow and three major sons of the declarant have come up in revision.
4. Apart from the challenge on the correctness of the decision of the Taluk Land Board on the merits, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised two other points in this revision viz. that on the death of the declarant, the entire proceedings before the Taluk Land Board abate and that in any event, notices should have been given by the Taluk Land Board to all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant and that they should also have been heard before final orders are passed for surrender of excess land.
5. In support of the first point, the learned Counsel for the petitioners refers to the provisions of the Act which would show that the excess land in the possession of a person vests in the Government, under S.86 of the Act only on the determination of the extent and other particulars of the lands, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered under S.85 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, since the declarant died before such determination, the estate of the deceased devolved by inheritance on his legal heirs who include also persons who are not members of the family as defined under the Act, the legal representatives have no obligation to surrender excess land unless they hold land in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Act, and such a question can be determined only under S.87 of the Act Learned Counsel submits that the estate of the deceased declarant vests in his legal representatives on his death and there is no postponement of such vesting until after determination of the excess land for surrender held by the deceased declarant by the Taluk
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
