Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19689
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J
K P JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
TALUK LAND BOARD – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION 83/2001
Agricultural exemptions under land ceiling laws may necessitate expert evaluations to substantiate claims regarding land use.
Headnote:
Agriculture - Taluk Land Board - Section 85(9A) - The court emphasized the importance of accurate agricultural assessments and directed the Taluk Land Board to allow the petitioner to present scientific evidence regarding the age of the coffee plants for exemption consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The Taluk Land Board initially found no excess land under ceiling laws as the petitioner claimed holdings of coffee and rubber plantations. Later, the Board reopened the case, leading to a report that contradicted the petitioner's claims, prompting the petitioner to seek relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment of the coffee plants' age should be made by an agricultural scientist and decided to set aside the Taluk Land Board's order, allowing for a proper evaluation of the claims.
Issues: Whether the Taluk Land Board's order denying exemption for the petitioner’s land claims was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The age determination of the coffee plants requires expert agricultural assessment, and the Taluk Land Board must reconsider the petitioner's claims based on accurate and scientifically gathered data.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Taluk Land Board's order and directed further scientific assessment of the coffee plants.
JUDGMENT
Under the original proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, it was held that the petitioner declarant does not hold any land in excess of ceiling area and accordingly the proceedings were dropped without directing the petitioner to surrender any land at all. This was done accepting the claim of the petitioner that 8 acres out of his total holding was coffee plantation and 5 acres was rubber plantation. Reliance was placed by the then Taluk Land Board on the report submitted by the authorised officer on the basis of an inspection conducted by him in 1976. In 1992, the case was reopened under Section 85 (9A) and the authorised officer was deputed once again. In the report subsequently obtained from the authorised officer, as regards coffee plantation, it is stated that the coffee plants appeared to be below of 30 years of age and on that basis, the authorised officer concluded that the planting was after 1.4.1964. As regards the rubber plantation, the authorised officer noticed that the previous authorised officer had not actually seen any rubber tree but had seen only the stumps of rubber trees which had been cut and removed. He would report that in his present inspection he could not see any rubber tree at all, but the entire land covered by what is claimed to be rubber plantation was seen planted with seasonal crops. Relying on the subsequent report of the authorised officer, the Taluk Land Board under the impugned order refused to exempt the total extent of 13 acres claimed as coffee plantation and rubber plantation.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.T.A.Ramadasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that CRC No.6491/50 was produced before the Taluk Land Board. So also the Rubber Board License No.3 was produced. Counsel submitted that the Coffee Board Registration Certificate will show that as far back as 1950, the land in question was coffee plantation. It seems that the above argument was addressed before the Taluk land Board also, but the Taluk Land Board noticed that as per the CRC, registration has been granted only in respect of two acres. As for the 8 acres, presently claimed to be coffee plantation, it was noticed that those 8 acres were incorporated in the CRC only in 1973. Mr.Ramadasan would submit that though incorporation in the CRC is only in 1973, the truth is that even prior to 1.4.1964, the entire 8 acres had been planted with coffee.
3. As I have already noticed, the authorised officer's report is only to the effect that the coffee plants are aged below 30 years. His inspection was on 22.7.2001. In other words, the authorised officer's report was that the trees were planted only after 1970. As regards the rubber plantation, the learned counsel would submit that the authorised officer in his first report had also reported that the land had been replanted with rubber. Just because the authorised officer in his second inspection conducted in 2001 did not see any rubber tree, it could not be assumed that the area was not rubber plantation on the crucial date. Learned counsel submitted that the implications of the rubber board license are not seen considered by the Taluk Land Board at all.
4. The learned Government Pleader would support the impugned order. It cannot be said that the impugned order is vitiated by any error of law justifying invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 103, so submitted the G.P.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.
I am of the view that the safest and the surest method for determining the age of the coffee plants, which are even now available on the area of 8 acres claiming an exemption as coffee plantation, is through an assessment by a competent agricultural scientist. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if an opportunity is given, the petitioner will be prepared to facilitate the filing of such a report before the Taluk Land Board.
