Back
2011 Supreme(Ker) 417
High Court of Kerala
K.T. SANKARAN
Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Ltd. Registered office at beach road, Alleppey
Versus
State Of Kerala & Others
CRP.No. 1822 of 1994(E)
Decided on : 24-05-2011
For the Petitioners:C.M. Devan, A.M. Shaffique, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Additional Advocate General.
Headnote:
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 - Sections 85(9) and 85(9A) - Surrender of excess land - As per order passed in C.P. connected with M.C.A. this Court ordered amalgamation of assets and liabilities of Kalpetta Estates Limited with Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited and that assets and liabilities of transferor Company vested with Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited - As per order in this Revision, cause title was allowed to be amended changing name of petitioner as Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited - Challenges the order - Held, The intention of legislature for introducing sub-s.(9A) to Kerala Land Reforms Act was only to confer powers on Land Board to review its orders to protect interest of State alone at its own instance and not on application of any declarant or aggrieved person - Taluk Land Board had no jurisdiction to review its order under section 89(9A) of Act on basis of an application from declarants - Section 85(9A) would not be of any aid to revision petitioner/declarant - Proceedings were reopened by Taluk Land Board in 1981 even before introduction of sub-s.(9A) - Present proceedings after commencement of Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1989, it could very well be sustained under sub-s.(9A) as well - No infirmity in initiation of present proceedings and in passing order by Taluk Land Board - When a dispute or a claim or contention is finally decided by Taluk Land Board, such decision cannot be altered or modified, except in accordance with the specific provisions contained in the Act - In the order Taluk Land Board has correctly comprehended principles of law and it was rightly held that declarant was not justified in re-agitating his claims which had become final - Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
1. The declarant in S.M.C.No.26/81, on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Vythiri, challenges the order dated 17.8.1994 in this Revision. The petitioner was, originally, Kalpetta Estates Limited. It is stated that as per the order passed in C.P.No.9 of 2005 connected with M.C.A.Nos.97 and 98 of 2004, this Court ordered amalgamation of the assets and liabilities of Kalpetta Estates Limited with Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited and that the assets and liabilities of the transferor Company vested with Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited. As per the order dated 6.12.2006 in this Revision, the cause title was allowed to be amended changing the name of the petitioner as Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited.
2. The ceiling proceedings were initiated originally as TLB.1777/1973 of Taluk Land Board, South Wynad. The Taluk Land Board in its order dated 23.1.1976, considered the ceiling statement dated 12.9.1970 of Kalpetta Estates Limited and, after considering the claims and objections, passed a final order dated 23.1.1976, directing the declarant (petitioner) to surrender 680.96 acres of land as excess land. It was found that the total extent in the possession of the declarant was 3648.81 acres. An extent of 2953.17 acres was exempted as plantation. The ceiling area was fixed at 14.68 acres and the declarant was directed to surrender 680.96 acres of land. The order dated 23.1.1976 was challenged by the declarant in C.R.P.NO.1210 of 1976 under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This Court as per order dated 11.11.1976, allowed the Revision in respect of certain extent of land and modified the order passed by the Taluk Land Board and reduced the extent of land to be surrendered from 680.96 acres to 435.90 acres.
3. In C.R.P.No.1210 of 1976, one of the points in dispute was regarding exclusion of 1089.98 acres in Chulika Estate and 190.94 acres in Poonoor Estate for fuel purposes. The Taluk Land Board did not exempt any land for fuel purpose. This question was considered by this Court and exemption was granted for 190.94 acres of land for fuelpurpose for Poonoor Estate. It was recorded in the judgment thus:
".. Although the entire 1098.94 acres of land is mentioned in his report as being used by Chulika Estate for fuel purposes the authorised officer has expressed his opinion in the report that 50 acres was sufficient for fuel purposes for that estate. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that if the area of 190.94 acres was exempted for fuel purposes for Poonoor estate he was not pressing the claim for exemption of the 1098.98 acres of land for the Chulika estate."
In C.R.P.No.1210 of1976, this Court rejected the claim for exclusion of 143.10 acres of land claimed as private forest and also rejected the claim for exemption of 110 acres of land on the ground that it was planted with coffee and firewood trees. The relevant portion of the order in C.R.P.No.1210 of 1976 reads thus:
"2. The company owns two estates, Poonoor and Chulika. The first point pressed on behalf of the Company by its counsel here, when this revision petition was heard was about exclusion of 143.10 acres of land on the ground that it was a private forest. The report of the authorised officer shows that it was planted with rubber in 1970. There is no evidence to show that it was private forest before 1970. So the exclusion claimed in respect of the 143.10 acres of land cannot be granted.
3. The second point pressed was about exemption of 110 acres of land on the ground that it was planted with coffee and fire-wood trees. The report of the authorised officer shows that there is not a single fire wood tree there. It is true that some small coffee plants were seen here and there on that land by the authorised officer. But that would not make it a coffee plantation. So it can neither be treated as a fuel area nor as a coffee estate. Therefore the exemption claimed
