Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9383
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
VISWAMBHARAN, – Appellant
Versus
THE TALUK LAND BOARD, – Respondent
CRP(LR) 8 2020
G.P.SHINOD, RAM MOHAN.G., GOVIND PADMANAABHAN, SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
A company is treated as a person under land reform laws, but land held by companies cannot be attributed to individuals unless they are actual stakeholders.
Headnote:
Land - Revision Petition - Kerala Land Reforms Act Section 2(43), Section 84 - The court interpreted the definition of 'person' under the Act, clarified the distinction between individuals and companies in land holdings, and mandated the Land Board to reassess land holdings after proper hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The Taluk Land Board demanded the surrender of excess land from the petitioners, believing their family held more land than permitted, including land held by a company they represented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land attributed to the petitioners was owned by a company and should not be included in the family’s landholdings. It cited that the Board must reassess this based on accurate legal interpretation.
Issues: Whether the Taluk Land Board correctly included company-held land in the petitioners' excess land calculations under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'person' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act includes companies, but land holdings of the companies represented by individuals should not be considered as the individual's holdings if not personally owned.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, setting aside the Taluk Land Board's order and directing a fresh assessment.
O R D E R
Order of the Taluk Land Board bearing No.03/03/CKDY (LR.1.4883/2018) dated 09.01.2020 is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. As per the impugned order, the Taluk Land Board has demanded surrender of an extent of 108.20424 Acres (86.563392 standard acres) by the family of the petitioners, on finding it to be excess land held by them.
2. Heard Sri.Shinod G.P., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of the respondent.
3. The grievance of the revision petitioners is that, large extent of property which belongs to a Private Limited Company under the name “Anshula Developers Estates Pvt. Ltd.” and certain other registered Private Limited Companies have been included in the account of the revision petitioners solely for the reason that, in the Sale Deeds the Company is shown as represented by the first petitioner. Further even after excluding the same, the extent of land which is the permitted holding of the petitioners family have not been taken into account.
4. That under the Land Reforms Act, a company is deemed to be a person entitled to hold land, is not in dispute. Definition of the term, “person” as stated in Section 2 (43) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act includes a Company.
5. It appears that a major portion of the property which are now included in the account of the petitioners' family are those covered by Sale Deeds in favour of registered Private Limited Companies. The only involvement of the petitioners is that, the Company/ Companies is shown as represented by the first petitioner. From the records it appears that the petitioners are neither the Directors nor shareholders of the Companies in question. It is seen that the first petitioner's name has been mentioned in the documents merely as a representative of the Company. The properties have been mutated in the name of the Company. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the properties in question could not have been included in the account of the petitioner's family.
6. So also, the extent of property that the petitioner's family is entitled to hold and the excess if any held, are to be specifically identified. Applicability of Section 84 is only in respect of the land held in excess of the exempted area. In the said regard, the Land Board is to have due consideration of the law laid down by this Court in Kesavan Namboodiri v.
State and Others (1976 KLT 427).
7. In the light of the above, fresh orders are to be passed by the Land Board taking note of the above and after hearing the petitioners.
Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the Taluk Land Board bearing No.03/03/CKDY (LR.1.4883/2018) dated 09.01.2020 is set aside. The Taluk Land Board shall pass fresh orders after hearing the parties.
