The 1999 amendment to the Kerala Land Reforms Act is unconstitutional and unreasonable, and purchase certificates issued under such amendment can be set aside.

The above Writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“(1) To set aside Ext.P4 purchase certificate issued in favour of the respondents 3 to 6.

(2)Issue a Declaration that Ext.P4 purchase certificate is null and void and is liable to be set aside; And (3)To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2.When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, both sides submitted that the matter is covered in favour of the petitioners in Ratna Bai vs. State of Kerala [ 2004 (1) KLT 632 ]. The relevant paragraph of the above said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“16. The facts of the case also show that real hardship and prejudice is caused on the part of the landowners also. A poor landlord who is unable to construct a house out of the necessity and hardships when gives small portion of the land for constructing a house on a ground rent and that citizen is deprived of that property without any real compensation. There are cases where karaima holders had obtained the right and ownership on the basis of the 1963 Act and thereafter balance property is alienated by the landlord or buildings are constructed for residential occupation of the landlord and lands are cultivated by him. By the present amendment that has to given karaima holder considering the possession of three decades ago. Whether one is in possession of the land as on 1 st January, 1970 is also a difficult question which is to be decided by the Land Tribunal. Of course, it is true that the burden is so heavy on the person to prove that he was in possession of the property on 1 st January, 1970. When the 1989 amendment came, no specific corresponding right was made for purchase of the appurtenant land. But, even in 1989 Act, the possession to be considered was with respect to 1989 and not of a retrospective date and the landowners are unable to question the 1989 Act because it was already included in the Ninth Schedule. There are cases in these groups where second application based on the 1989 Act was dismissed. A Single Bench of this Court held in Damayanthi & Ors v. Karthiayani & Ors (ILR 1997 (2) Kerala 428) that once a tenant raises a claim of actual tenancy, he cannot be permitted to advance the case of deemed tenancy. Anyway, that is a matter to be decided by the Tribunal when an application is filed before the Tribunal. We are not considering the question of constitutionality of the 1989 Amendment Act as it is included in the Ninth Schedule and we are not also mentioning anything regarding the rights of the karaima holder under the 1969 or 1989 Acts as we are only concerned in these petitions about the effect of the 1999 Amendment Act and we are of opinion that the impugned Amendment Act is unconstitutional and unreasonable.”

3. In the light of the above judgment, Ext.P3 purchase certificate can be set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: