Back
Judges : M.U.ISAAC
DEWET VAN INGAN AND OTHERS - Appellant
Versus
LAND - Respondent
Case No : 0. P. No. 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1514, 1515 of 1967
Decided On : 02/20/1969
Advocates Appeared :
K. T. Harindranath; For Petitioners Government Pleader; For Respondents
Land Tribunal - Coffee Plantation - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Section 29 - The court quashed the record of rights prepared by the third respondent and restrained respondents 1 and 3 from effecting any change in the revenue records pursuant to the preparation of the record of rights by the third respondent. The court found that the lands in question were part of a coffee plantation and therefore, Section 29 of the Act relating to the preparation of records did not apply to the case. The court also found that the third respondent's actions were without jurisdiction and in violation of the Act and the Rules. The court held that the proceedings were conducted in disregard of the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, co-owners of a coffee plantation, sought to quash the record of rights prepared by the third respondent and restrain respondents 1 and 3 from effecting any change in the revenue records. The lands in question were part of a coffee plantation, and the third respondent's actions were found to be without jurisdiction and in violation of the Act and the Rules. The court found that the proceedings were conducted in disregard of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lands in question were part of a coffee plantation and therefore, Section 29 of the Act relating to the preparation of records did not apply to the case. The court also found that the third respondent's actions were without jurisdiction and in violation of the Act and the Rules. The court held that the proceedings were conducted in disregard of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main contentions were: 1. The lands were part of a coffee plantation and therefore, Section 29 of the Act did not apply. 2. The second respondent was not a cultivating tenant and had no holding in respect of the land for which the record of rights was prepared. 3. The enquiry relating to the preparation of the record of rights was conducted by the Special Tahsildar, contrary to the statutory provisions. 4. The petitioners were not given any reasonable opportunity to substantiate their objections. 5. The procedure adopted by the third respondent was in violation of the Rules and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lands in question were part of a coffee plantation and therefore, Section 29 of the Act relating to the preparation of records did not apply. The court also found that the third respondent's actions were without jurisdiction and in violation of the Act and the Rules. The court held that the proceedings were conducted in disregard of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the Original Petitions, quashed the record of rights prepared in all these cases, and restrained respondents 1 and 3 from effecting any change in the revenue records pursuant to the preparation of the record of rights by the third respondent. Respondent No. 3 was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioners in all these cases.
1. These eleven writ petitions arise out of the same facts; and they seek the same kind of reliefs. The questions arising in these cases are also the same; and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment.
2. The petitioners in all these cases are the same; and they are the two co-owners of a coffee plantation, having an extent of 261-71 acres in R. S.454/ 4-A2 and other survey numbers in Tirunelli Amsom, North Wynad, Cannanore District. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in all these cases are also the same. They are the Land Tribunal, Tellicherry, the Assistant Collector, Tellicherry, and the State of Kerala respectively. The second respondent in these cases are different persons; and they are said to be mazdoors working in the plantation under the petitioners, and living in the coolie lines provided by the petitioners for the residence of the mazdoors. S.29 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for preparation of record of rights in respect of cultivating tenants. The cultivating tenant' is defined in S.2 (8) of the Act as a tenant, who is in actual possession of and is entitled to cultivate the land comprised in the holding. The word 'holding' is also defined in S.2(17) of the Act, meaning a parcel or parcels of land held under a single demise by a tenant from a landlord, and shall include any portion of a holding as above defined which the landlord and the tenant have agreed, or are bound under S.48 or otherwise, to treat as a separate holding. The word 'tenant' is also defined in the Act in S.2 (57); and it is not necessary to refer to that definition. S.29 of the Act reads as follows:
"29. Preparation of record of rights:
(1) Any cultivating tenant may, at any time within one year from the commencement of this Act, apply to the Land Tribunal for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of the holding. The Land Tribunal shall admit such application if it is prima facie satisfied that the application has been made bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Government may suo motu direct the Land Tribunal for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of any holding.
(3) Where an application for the preparation of a record of rights is admitted or when directed by the Government to prepare such record, the Land Tribunal shall direct the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the holding is situated to prepare a record of rights in respect of the holding.
(4) The record of rights shall be prepared in such manner as may be prescribed, after giving an opportunity to the landlord and all other interested parsons to be heard. The record of rights shall contain
(a) the description and extent of the holding;
(b) the name and address of the owner; (c) the nature of the applicant's interest in the holding;
(dj the name and address of the intermediaries in respect of the holding and the nature of the interest of each of such intermediaries;
(e) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
(5) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall, for the purpose of proceedings under the section, have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;"and
(d) issuing commission for the examination of witness or for local investigation.
(6) The record of rights prepared under this section shall be admissible in evidence before any court or tribunal.
(7) Where an application for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of a holding is admitted, no application under S.31 for determination of fair rent in respect of that holding shall be disposed of till the record of rights is prepared under this Section."
By an order dated 7121964, the four
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
