The understanding of 'unculturable waste lands' must consider the legislative framework, affirming that past family composition at the time of transfer is critical in determining ceiling limits.

1. This revision petition arises from a common order passed by the ? Taluk Land Board, Quilon in three separate ceiling proceedings under S.85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The first, numbered as TLB 7/76/SM relates to the family of the first petitioner (Suseelan) consisting of himself, his wife Saraswathi Amma and two children, Geetha and Sindhu, who were minors on 1-1-1970. The other two relate to Ram Mohan and Raj Mohan, also sons of Suseelan, but adult unmarried persons on 1-1-1970. They are the 2nd and 3rd revision petitioners. By order dated 13-10-1976, the Taluk Land Board held that the family of the 1st petitioner and petitioners 2 and 3 taken together, were liable to surrender 30 and odd acres of land as excess.

2. It is said that Saraswathi Amma had obtained a gift of 89.84 acres of land from her father, to be treated as thavazhi properties of herself and her children. A substantial portion of this had been sold away before 18-12-1957 and there was only a balance of 49.36 acres as on the aforesaid date, Certain items were sold away between 19-12-1957 and 20-12-1965; and on 20-12-65, about 25 acres of land were newly purchased. There was a partition in the family on 24-3-1970 and one Rejani, another daughter of Saraswathi Amma who was a major on 1-1-1970 was allotted some shares.

3. For the purpose of fixing the total extent of land held by the petitioners, the Taluk Land Board treated all sales effected after 18-12-57 as invalid, under the Explanation to S.85(1) of the Act. According to the petitioners, these were exempted lands under the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 and also under Act I of 1964 before its amendment by Act 35 of 1969, and the Taluk Land Board committed an error of law in holding that they were not. The correctness or otherwise of this decision regarding eligibility for exemption is the first question arising for consideration here.

4. The petitioners' contention is that the lands in question (in Ithikara Ela) were "unculturable waste lands", exempted from the ceiling provisions by S.57(1)(f) of Act 4 of 1961 and S.81(1)(n) of Act I of 1964 (before its amendment). The Taluk Land Board rejected the plea by taking into account the following facts and circumstances:
(i) in the Village register, the lands were registered as single crop wet; (ii) the sale deeds executed by the petitioners bad also described them in similar terms;
(iii) in the settlement register also the land was classified as single crop; (iv) though the lands could not be cultivated without bunding and dewatering, and though the petitioners had not raised paddy crops thereon, a major portion of the Ela was being cultivated by others; and
(v) in CRP. 2466 of 1975 and 2261 of 1975, this Court had rejected similar contentions raised by adjoining holders.
Prima facie, the decision seems to rest on relevant material; but counsel for the petitioners referred to the Supreme Court decision in Raja Anand v. U. P. State (AIR 1967 SC 1081) and the decision of this Court in Mathai Varkey v. Mariam (1969 KLT 503) to contend that the approach of the Land Board is erroneous.

5. The Supreme Court decision arose under the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894. S.17 of the Act provided that the Collector could, on direction from Government, take possession of any "waste or arable land'' even before making of the award in the L. A. proceedings. The contention was that the land in question was neither waste nor arable, but was forest land. The Court held that in the context, "arable land" could mean only lands mainly used for ploughing and for raising crops. "Waste land" was a contrast to "arable