The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision in S.82 (4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act should be given effect to, and the conversion of land into a plantation before 1-1-70 does not exempt the landowner from surrendering excess land.

1. Both these civil revision petitions arise out of proceedings before the Taluk Land Board under S.85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) for surrender of excess lands held by the respective petitioners. The Board had determined the excess land which the petitioners have to surrender, under S.85 (5) (c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have moved this court under S.103 of the Act. As a common question of law relating to the interpretation of S.82 (4) of the Act arises in the two cases, they were heard together. Though we are disposing of the cases by this common judgment, herein we shall deal with them separately.

2. The petitioner in C. R. P. 1027/74 as the head of the family consisting of himself, his wife and two minor children, filed the statement under S.85 (2) of the Act before the Land Board intimating the particulars in respect of all the lands held by the family. After the necessary enquiries contemplated by the statute, the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that the petitioner has to surrender 12.19 acres in Sy. No. 43/5 and 1.01 acres in Sy. No. 46/3 of Anamangad Village of Perintalmanna taluk as excess land above the ceiling area in the family. Consequently a notice was caused to be issued to the petitioner and his wife calling upon them to file objections, if any, against the extent and identity of lands found liable to be surrendered by the petitioner. In response to this notice the petitioner raised the following objections before the Taluk Land Board:

(1) The lands referred to in the notice are lands exempted from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act as per S.81, as they are "private forests" as defined in the Act;

(2) In 1963, the lands were converted into a rubber plantation and were covered by the exemption from the ceiling provisions in favour of "plantations", provided by S.81 (e) of the Act;

(3) One of the petitioner's sons, Damodaran had acquired ownership over 6.17 acres of land by virtue of a partition in the family and over another extent of 1.31 acres of land under a gift in his favour executed by the petitioner: and therefore an extent of 7.48 acres has, in any event, to be excluded from the land to be surrendered.

These objections were overruled by the Taluk Land Board for the reasons indicated hereunder:

(1) There is no record with the petitioner to show that the land is a 'private forest'. The petitioner himself admitted that the area did not come within the purview of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act. Therefore, the land does not come within the meaning 'private forest' as defined in the Act.

(2) The evidence adduced by the petitioner would indicate that the land was converted into a rubber plantation only in 1968, and not in 1963 as contended by the petitioner.

(3) Damodaran, petitioner's son was a minor on 111970 and hence a member of the 'family' on the date. The land held by him is land held by the 'family' and cannot be excluded In fixing the ceiling limit of the family.

Before us, Mr. K. P. Radhakrishna Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner took up the following points in challenging the decision of the Taluk Land Board:

(1) Even according to the Land Board, the land in question is a rubber plantation since 1968. Therefore, as before 1-1-70, the land having been converted into a rubber plantation, the same is liable to be exempted under S.81 of the Act.

(2) The Taluk Land Board should have excluded the land, the ownership of which stands vested in Damodaran (who is now a major) the son of the petitioner, by virtue of the partition in his family and the gift deed in his favour.

(3) The Board has not properly kept in view that the definition of 'private forest' in the Act differs from the definition as given in the M.P.P.F. Act in considering the question whether the land was 'private forest'.

We will consider these points one by one:

Claim for exemption from ceiling area on the ground that the land in question admittedly b