Chitambaresh, J.(on behalf of Sathish Ninan, J. also)

1. The decision in State of Kerala v. Mohammedali Haji [1996 (1) KLT 584(DB)] is doubted by the learned single Judge which has been endorsed by the Division Bench and hence this reference to the Full Bench.

2.Mohammedali Haji's case (supra) itself came on a reference doubting the correctness of the decision in K.Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala and others [C.R.P.No.1245/1975] rendered by the single Judge. It was held in Krishnankutty's case (supra) that rocky area in a land from which granite stones could be extracted cannot be termed as a 'commercial site' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('the Act'). The definition can be found in Section 2(5) of the Act which is as follows:

“(5) 'Commercial site' means any land (not being a kudiyiruppu or a kudikidappu or karaima) which is used principally for the purposes of any trade, commerce, industry, manufacture or business;”

(emphasis supplied)

The land on which commercial activity is conducted for the purposes of any trade, industry, manufacture etc. is exempted as a 'commercial site' in reckoning the ceiling area under Section 81(1)(q) of the Act.

3. The Act was enacted as part of the agrarian reforms in the State and one of its objects is to fix the ceiling area of the holder and resume possession of the excess lands for distribution to the landless. Yet another object is to prevent fragmentation of the holding evident from Section 81(4) of the Act and the Kerala Land Reforms (Using of Five Percent Plantation Land for Non-plantation Purposes) Rules, 2015. The emphasis of the Act is on the availability of the land on earth for all time to come so that it can be made use of for agricultural production in case of contingency to boost the economy of the State. The intermediaries in the case of tenanted holding are abolished and the benefits extended to the actual tiller of the land to give them an impetus to work more for the betterment of the society. It is with this object in mind has the term 'commercial site' appearing in the Act to be interpreted in the context of exemption from the provisions fixing the ceiling limit.

4.House sites; sites of temples, churches, mosques, cemeteries, burning grounds etc.; sites of building; and commercial sites enjoy exemption under Clauses (m), (o), (p) and (q) of Section 81(1) of the Act. It all denotes the places where houses, temples, churches, mosques, buildings or industrial houses are sited in which case it will not be reckoned for ceiling area. The houses, temples, churches, mosques, buildings or industrial houses are only super structures which if removed will make available the land for agricultural operations. Even the land set apart for an industrial or commercial undertaking at the commencement of the Act will lose exemption if it is not used for the purpose under Section 81(1)(k) of the Act. The idea is that any more of the land shall not be put to use in a manner making the agricultural operations impossible after the commencement of the Act.

5.Using up the land by extracting granite stones from the table of earth does not make the site 'commercial' eligible for exemption from the ceiling area under Section 81(1)(q) read with Section 2(5) of the Act. Mr Justice P.Subramonian Poti (as he then was) observed in Krishnankutty's case (supra) thus:

“As defined, it takes in lands which are used principally for the purpose of any trade, commerce, industry, manufacture or business. The nature of the land is indicated by this definition. The fact that in order to remove the product from the land there is some element of commerce or trade taking place in the land does not render it a commercial site. May be that the site is not only significant as one which could be exploited as rocky area but has otherwise commercial or business importance. That would be another thing. The mere fact that operation such as blasting and conversion into metals is being conducted in a rocky area does not r