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

1981 Supreme(Ker) 258

Judges : U.L.BHAT
CHACKO VARGHESE - Appellant
Versus
TALUK LAND BOARD - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 1408 of 1980-B
Decided On : 11/20/1981
Advocates Appeared :
P.N.K. Achan; K. Vijayan; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of intention and conscious voluntary acts in determining the conversion of land from one category to another under the Land Ceiling Act.

Headnote:

S.87 Conversion of Land - Land Ceiling Act - S.87, S.81(1)(e), S.85, S.85A, S.85A(1), S.85A(2), S.85A(3), S.86, S.83, Schedule II - The judgment discusses the application of S.87 of the Land Ceiling Act and the interpretation of the provisions related to the conversion of land from one category to another. It emphasizes the importance of intention and conscious voluntary acts in determining conversion and provides guidance on how to assess whether a land has been converted from one class to another. The court also highlights the need to consider the circumstances and materials in each case to determine conversion.

Fact of the Case:

The Taluk Land Board determined the surplus land to be surrendered by the revision petitioner under S.85 of Act 1 of 1964. The petitioner's land was initially exempted as a rubber plantation but was later deemed non-exempted due to the cutting of rubber trees and delay in replantation. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the delay was justified due to legal and acquisition proceedings. The court found that the Taluk Land Board did not properly consider the petitioner's intention to replant the land and remanded the case for fresh disposal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Taluk Land Board did not properly consider the petitioner's intention to replant the land and the reasons for the delay. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh disposal.

Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of surplus land under S.85, the application of S.87 regarding the conversion of exempted land, and the consideration of the petitioner's intention and reasons for delay in replantation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the intention and conscious voluntary acts in determining the conversion of land from one category to another. It highlighted the need to assess the circumstances and materials in each case to make a decision.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The case was remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Judgment :-

1. Taluk Land Board, Alwaye as per order dated 22-10-1976 determined the surplus land liable to be surrendered by the revision petitioner under S.85 of Act 1 of 1964 (for short'the Act') as 83 900 cents. This order was passed after exempting 20.57 acres of land as rubber plantation under S.81 (1) (e) of the Act. Later the Taluk Land Board was doubtful of the eligibility of this land for exemption and issued a notice under S 85 (9) of the Act and in due course set aside the earlier order. A fresh draft statement was issued on 26-4-1978. However, the Taluk Land Board in the revised final order reiterated its earlier finding upholding the exemption of 20.57 acres of land and disposed of the case accordingly That was on the basis that 20.57 acres of land was a rubber plantation on 1-4-1964 and as such eligible for exemption though the rubber trees were cut and removed after 1-1-1970. On 5-4-197, the Taluk Land Board initiated proceedings under S.87 of the Act and issued a draft statement calling upon the revision petitioner to surrender excess land of 20.57 acres. It was found that 14.77.650 acres was acquired by the Government for the purpose of I. S. R O. Ultimately the impugned final order was passed holding that S.87 applies to the facts of the case and determining the surplus land to be surrendered as 6.64.900 acres. This order is now challenged.

2. It is admitted that on 1-4-1964 as well as 1-1-1970, the land of an extent of 20.57 acres in Sy. Nos. 977/1B and 1C and 982/1A and 1B was rubber plantation eligible for exemption under S.81 (1) (e) of the Act. It is also admitted that after 1-1-1970 the rubber trees were slaughter-tapped According to the revision petitioner, the rubber trees became old and practically non-yeilding and therefore he had them cut with a view to replant. Replantation was not done till 1978, though learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since then replanting has been done. Revision petitioner urged certain reasons why he could do replanting only long after slaughter tapping. Taluk Land Board held that since rubber trees were cut after 1-1-1970 and replanation was not done for a number of years, it is a case of conversion of exempted land into a non-exempted class of land namely, other dry land, and the reasons urged for not replanting in time are not bona fide and therefore Explanation II to S.87 of the Act is attracted. This finding is now challenged.

3. The question of "conversion" has been considered by this Court in some cases. In C. R P. Nos. 126, 127.128, 129, 583 and 585 of 1975, this Court had to consider the question under what circumstances private forest exempted under Sec..81(1)(d) of the Act would cease to be a private forest. Dealing with the particular facts of the case, G. Viswanatha Iyer J. observed as follows:

"The records produced by the petitioners show that these areas were prepared for planting rubber even before Act 1 of 1964 came into force. The preparing the ground and planting them with rubber, coffee or cardamom is an integrated activity and when that has been shown to have been started long before Act 1 of 1964 came into force, it can safely be concluded that when the Act came into force this has been used principally for cultivating the above mentioned crops. In that view also these are areas which are plantations on ground at the time when the ceiling case was taken should be exempted."

4. In C.R.P. 2575 of 1976 this Court had to consider a similar question. M. P. Menon J in the course of judgment observed as follows:

It is said that the petitioner and his brothers had purchased the extensive forest lands in question for converting them into plantations. The partnership was also formed for this purpose. The planting process had admittedly begun before 1-1-1970 and was continued thereafter also, though the exact interval between clear felling and planting in respect of every part of the area is not known. In these circumstances, the relevant quest
















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