TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... APPEAL NO. 143/77 For the Appellants: T. C. Raghavan and P. K. Pillai. For Respondents 1-2: K. M. K. Nair. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1309/77 For the Appellant: T. C. Raghavan, and N. Sudhakaran, For the Respondents: K. M. K. Nair. For the Intervener: Mathai M. Paikeday and N. Sudhakaran. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1863/77 For the Appellant: T. R. G. Warriyar and A. S. Nambiar, For the Respondents: K. R. Nambiar and V. J. Francis, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2070/77 For the Appellant: T. C. Raghavan, N. Sudhakaran and P. K. Pillai, For the Respondents: K. M. K. Nair, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2584/77 For the Appellants: T. C. Raghavan, N. Sudhakaran and P. K. Pillai, For Respondents 1-3: P. A. Francis and K. M. K. Nair. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2585/77 For the Appellant: M. C. Bhandare, Mrs. S. Bhandare, P. Santhalingam, A. N. Karhanis and Miss M. Poduval. For the Respondents: K. M. K. Nair, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2586/77 For the Appellant: P. K. Pillai. For the Respondents: K. M. K. Nair. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2587/77 For the Appellant: K. T. Harindra Nath and N. Sudhakaran. For the Repondents: V. J. Francis. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2623/77 For the Appellant: T. R. G. Warriyar and A. S. Nambiar. For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... APPEAL NO. 886/79 For the Appellant: A. S. Nambiar. For the Respondents: V. J. Francis. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 889/79 For the Appellants: S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri. For the Respondents: K. M. K. Nair. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 890/79 For the Appellants: A. S. Nambiar. For the Respondents: V. J. Francis. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 894/79 For the Appellant: N. Sudhakaran. For the Respondents: K. R. Nambiar. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 895/79 For the Appellants: M. C. Bhandare, S. Bhandare, Miss M. Poduval and J. Santhalingam. For the Respondents 1-3: K. R. Nambiar. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 896/79 For the Appellant: N. Sudhakaran. For the Respondents: V. J. Francis. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 897/79 For the Appellants: P. K. Pillai. For the Respondents: V. J. Francis. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 898/79 For the Appellants: A. S. Nambiar. For the Respondents: K. R. Nambiar. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 899/79 For the Appellants: S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri. For the Respondents: K. R. Nambiar. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 900/79 For the Appellant: S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri. For the Respondents: 1-3: K. R. Nambiar. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 901/79 For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y passed, and received the assent of the President on January 21, 1961. Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect from February 15, 1961. This Court struck down that Act as unconstitutional in its application to the ryotwari lands of Hosdurg and Kasaragod taluka. The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, was then passed for the temporary protection of tenants in those taluks. The State High Court declared it null and void in its application to the ryotwari lands of the Malabar area and most of the lands of Travancore area. So the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1963, was passed to provide some protection to tenants. It was an interim legislation. Even so it repealed the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, and suspended the operation of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960. After re-examining the requirements in the field of land reforms as a whole, the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, was published in State Gazette on September 15, 1963. It covered a wide field in the matter of land reforms and, inter alia, provided for the imposition of a ceiling on holding of lands, the surrender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and transactions mentioned in section 3. We are however primarily concerned with Chapter III under the general rubric Restrictions on ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands. Section 81 deals with exemptions , including plantations . Section 82 prescribes the ceiling area , section 83 prohibits the owning or holding or possessing under a mortgage lands in excess of the ceiling area. Section 84 declares what voluntary transfers shall be deemed to be invalid. Subsection (3) of the section has attracted much controversy and we shall deal with it in due course. Section 85 makes it obligatory to surrender the excess land, and section 86 vests such excess lands in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Section 87 makes provision for the surrender of excess land obtained by gift, purchase or mortgage, lease, surrender or any other transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise if the total extent of land thereby exceeds the ceiling area. These are the main provisions which bear on the three points which have been raised for our consideration. The question is whether lands converted into plantation between Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion. The controversy therefore is whether the restriction of sub-section (4) of section 82 came into force from January 1, 1970 because section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 was brought into force on that date, or whether it came into force on April 1, 1964, when section 82 as originally enacted by the Act came into force. As it happens, all the three Acts contain provisions about their commencement and it is these which have to be interpreted for the purpose of resolving the dispute. Sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act provides as follows,- 1(3). The provisions of this Act, except this section which shall come into force at once, shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint: Provided that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act, and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act, shall be construed as reference to the coming into force of that provision. It therefore provides that: (i) section 1 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 1964 when it was first brought into force as mentioned above. Reference in this connection has been made to sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Amending Act of 1971. The argument is however untenable on the plain meaning of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act which clearly states that any reference in any provision of the Act to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision. So when the provision of sub-section (4) of section 82 was brought into force on April 1, 1964, its amended version would also come into force from that date. And it will be a matter of no consequence that section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971, which amended the sub-section, came into force on January 1, 1970. It will be remembered that section 66 of the Amending Act of 1969 which amended section 82 came into force on January 1, 1970, and as the legislature decided to amend it once again by section 12 of the Act of 1971, with retrospective effect from the same date (January 1, 1970), it made a specific provision to that effect in section 1 of the Amending Act of 1971 and left the date of commencement of the Act for purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s nothing. Examined in this perspective, section 82 of the Act (as amended by section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971) is, to say the least, a distinct rule or clause for it provides the extent of the ceiling area in the cases mentioned in it (sub-section (1) ), its effect on the lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of the family (sub-section (2) ), the taking into account of the shares of the members of the family or an adult unmarried person (sub-section (3)), the effect of conversion of any class of land specified in Schedule II into any other class of land specified in the schedule or into a plantation and the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land (sub-section (4) ), lands owned by a private trust or a private institution (sub-section (5) ) and exemption of lands covered by section 81 (sub-section (6) ). The section is therefore a provision by any standard, and it is futile to argue that this is not so merely because the provisions relating to the prohibition on the owning or holding or possessing under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween September 15, 1963 and January 1, 1970. As Chapter III of the Act was not applicable to those lands because of the exemption under section 81, and as that exemption continued until January 1, 1970 when section 65 of the Amending Act of 1969 came into force, it was held by this Court that as the exemption was not withdrawn until January 1, 1970, the transfers made between September 15, 1963 and January 1, 1970 were valid under the provisions of the Act. The decision in that case thus turned on the meaning of section 83 and 85. That view was noticed by this Court in State of Kerala and others v. K. A. Gangadharan (supra) and it was held that the dominant legislative intent was the imposition of the ceiling on lands and the consequential obligation to surrender lands owned or held in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date, namely, January 1, 1970. The gifts of excess land made on March 28, 1974 were therefore ignored. That was also, therefore, a different case and cannot avail the appellants. The view taken by the High Court in Ramunni Nair v. State of Kerala(1) in regard to the meaning to be attached to the words the commencement of this Act is thus substantially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent relates. The real question for consideration therefore is whether the certificate is binding on the Taluk Land Board for the purpose of taking a decision in regard to the ceiling area under sub-section (5) of section 85. It may be mentioned in this connection that while the Land Tribunal deals with most of the matters relating to tenants and is constituted under section 99, the Taluk Land Board is constituted under section 100A and deals with statements filed under sub-section (2) of section 85 by persons owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area. Sub-section (5) of section 85 provides further that the Taluk Land Board shall- (a) cause the particulars mentioned in the statement to be verified, (b) ascertain whether the person to whom the statement relates owns or holds any other lands, and (c) by order determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. A reading of sub-section (1) of section 85 shows that the question for examination is not that relating to the existence of the tenancy rights of the person who files the statement, but that relating to the bona fides of his belief that the land sought to be excluded by him is liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat even though the certificate of purchase issued under sub-section (1) of section 72K is conclusive proof of the assignment of the right, title and interest of the landowner in favour of the holder in respect of the holding concerned under sub-section (2), that only means that no contrary evidence shall be effective to displace it, unless the so-called conclusive effective is inaccurate on its face, or fraud can be shown (Halsbury's Laws of England, fourth edition, vol. 17, page 22 paragraph 28). It may be stated that inaccuracy on the face of the certificate is not as wide in its connotation as an error apparent on the face of the record . It will not therefore be permissible for the Board to disregard the evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase merely on the ground that it has not been issued on a proper appreciation or consideration of the evidence on record, or that the Tribunal's finding suffers from any procedural error. What sub-section (2) of section 72K provides is an irrebutable presumption of law, and it may well be regarded as a rule of substantive law. But even so, for reasons already stated, it does not thereby take away the jurisdiction of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed by the Act, had voluntarily transferred some of their lands after the publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, in the State Gazette on September 15, 1963. Section 84 of the Act therefore provides that, except for the transfers mentioned in the section, the transfers so made shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act, and shall be invalid. The section has thus been linked with section 82 which specifies the ceiling area. As has been stated, the ceiling area was considerably reduced by the amendment which was made in section 82 by the Amending Act of 1969. That Act amended section 84 also, with effect from January 1, 1970. It was again amended by Act 17 of 1972 (hereafter referred to as the Amending Act of 1972) with effect from November 2, 1972, when that Act came into force. It, inter alia, inserted sub-section (3) in section 84 as follows,- (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression ceiling area in sub-sections (1) and (2) means the ceiling area specified in sub-section (1) of section 82 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, (35 of 1969). The question therefore is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain voluntary transfers invalid on the ground that they are deemed to be calculated to defeat the provision of the law relating to imposition of ceiling on land. It is therefore co-related to section 82 (which fixed the ceiling), and if the Legislature decided that the ceiling should be reduced, it is natural that the deeming provision of section 84 should attach to transfers in excess of the reduced ceiling because the crucial date of invalidation has been stated in section 84, right from the inception of the Act, to be September 15, 1963, irrespective of the law relating to the ceiling. It will be remembered that the Act had not even come into force on September 15, 1963, but it, all the same, invalidated the transfers made after that date in excess of the ceiling it prescribed. So, as long as September 15, 1963 continues to remain the date with reference to which the transfers are to be invalidated, the variation in the extent of the ceiling has necessarily to work back to that date. The legislature therefore inserted sub-section (3) in section 84 to clarify that the expression ceiling area in the earlier sub-sections would mean the ceiling area specified in section 82(1) as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raph 10 thereof it was stated as follows:- There have been some doubts as to the scope of the expression ceiling area as used in the section. It is proposed to provide that the ceiling area referred to in the section is the ceiling area under the principal Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (35 of 1969). The legislature inserted the sub-section without any change. It is true that the intention of the legislature cannot be ascertained from any statement by way of a note on the clauses of a Bill or breviate and, as has been stated, the duty of the court is to find the natural meaning of the words in a statute, in the context in which they are used, but it has always been considered permissible, and even desirable, for a court, while interpreting a statute, to take note of the history of the statute and the circumstances in which it was passed or the mischief at which it was directed. The reason is that the meaning which is to be given to a statute should be such as will carry out its object. If sub-section (3) of section 84 is examined with due regard to all these factors, it will appear that, as has plainly been stated in it, the ceiling ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court for fresh disposal according to law in that respect. C.A. No. 878 of 1979 K. Devaki Amma and others vs. State of Kerala and others The view taken by the High Court in regard to the evidentiary value of the purchase certificate is not correct for reasons mentioned by us while dealing with point No. 2. The appeal is therefore allowed to this extent and the High Court shall re-examine its decision in this respect. C.A. No. 879 of 1979 C. S. Raman Mannadiar vs. State of Kerala and others While examining revision petition No. CRP No. 4988/76- C, certificates of purchase came up for consideration in the High Court. In view of our decision on point No. 2, it will be necessary for the High Court to re-examine the matter. The appeal is allowed to this extent and it is ordered accordingly. C.A. No. 2623 of 1977 P. Kunhilakshmi Amma vs. The Taluk Land Board, Talappily and another Mr. Warriyar has argued that the appellant is a widow and that the ancestral lands have wrongly been treated as her own lands. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court but no such point was raised for its consideration. It cannot be allowed to be raised now and as no other poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was advanced on the basis of parol evidence and was rejected by the High Court. It is therefore a finding of fact and does not call for re- examination here. The appeal fails and is dismissed. C. A. No. 40 of 1977 E. V. Paul v. The Taluk Land Board, Talappilly and another. It is not disputed that there is a pine-apple-canning factory on 2.15 acres, and there is a pine-apple plantation on the adjoining area of 11 acres. It has been argued that the whole of 13.15 acres should have been exempted from the ceiling limit as it was a commercial site within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Act. But, according to that definition, commercial site means (leaving out the inapplicable portion) any land which is used principally for the purposes of any trade, commerce, industry, manufacture or business. A cross reference to sub-section (5) of section 101 shows that such a question has to be decided after taking into account the extent of, the amount invested in, and the income from, the portion so used and the remaining portion and the other relevant matters. It has been held that the 11 acres of land did not fall within this definition and the finding of fact that it is not a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The General Manager of the Company has stated that fire wood is being supplied to the employees free of cost. So the claim to plant red gum all over is belied by its General Manager's statement. Moreover supply of fuel wood cannot be said to be a purpose ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops. The Land Board has disallowed the claim for exemption of 136.17 acres, but it has been allowed in full by the High Court. Here again the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Board's finding of fact for there was nothing to show that it was an area from which crop was not gathered at the relevant time. If that had been so, it might have been an area within the plantation. In fact it appears from the order of the Board that no other estate had made any such claim. The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent that the Board's decision is restored in both these matters. C.A. No. 1309 of 1977 V. G. Kuriakose, Vadakkekara House, vs. The Taluk Land Board and others Mr. Raghavan has argued that the Land Board erred in excluding only 25 cents on account of road and 55 cents for the house site and the approach road. These are findings of fact which have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that that excess land has been incorrectly determined. It may be mentioned that the Collector and the Tahsildars were authorised under section 105A (1) to make the reports which were lost sight of when the first determination of surplus land was made, and all that the Board has done is to rectify the mistake. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. C.A. No. 362 of 1978 Mammad vs. The State of Kerala and others It has been argued by Mr. Harindranath that Mammad son of Mohammad Kutty was a major on January 1, 1970 and he was wrongly taken to be a minor for the determination of the ceiling area. But we find from the High Court's order dated July 5, 1976 that Mohammad Kutty had himself mentioned in the statement which he filed about his holding that his son Mammad was a minor on that date. It is therefore clear that the attempt to show that he was a major on January 1, 1970 was an after thought, and it has rightly been rejected. The appeal is dismissed. C.A. No. 881 of 1979 Kodoth Krishnan Nair vs. The Taluk Land Board, Kasargod and others Mr. Harindranath has argued that the house, cattleshed, tank, well and outhouse should have been exempted. But no such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... others The controversy relates to the three gift-deeds executed after January 1, 1970. The High Court has refused to exclude the gifted lands, and in view of this Court's decision in Gangadharan's case, (supra) that decision is correct as transfers made after January 1, 1970 have to be ignored even if they are of the excepted variety mentioned in section 84 of the Act. The appeals fail and are dismissed. C.A. No. 875 of 1979 T. Devidas and others vs. Taluk Land Board, Talappilly and others It has been argued by Mr. Rammurthy that the High Court erred in upholding the Taluk Land Board's view that the properties received by the deceased Nanikutty Amma under the partition deed of 1117 belonged to her exclusively as the property really belonged to the tavazhi consisting of herself, her daughter and the lineal descendants. The High Court has examined the document concerned and held that the properties were private properties of the executants of the document. This is a finding of fact and there is nothing wrong with the view that the property which fell to Nanikutty's share was her own property. There is no merit in the appeal and it dismissed. C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the authorised officer that this was not so. The High Court has given satisfactory reasons for that view and there is no occasion for us to interfere with that finding. The appeal fails and is dismissed. C. A. No. 903 of 1979 T. V. Krishnan vs. The State of Kerala and others The main controversy was that relating to the date of birth of the daughter of the appellant. The Taluk Land Board has held that she was minor on January 1, 1970 and was a member of the appellant's family. That finding has been based on the entries in the school certificate, and as a certified copy of the birth register was not produced, it cannot be said that the High Court erred in refusing to disturb the Board's finding. The appeal is dismissed. C.A. Nos. 574-575 of 1978 Ravi Karuna Karan vs. The Taluk Land Board, Quilon and others Special leave in these appeals has been granted limited to the question of urban lands measuring 7.19 acres. The Board gave its finding in this matter after making the necessary enquiries and visiting the lands. The High Court has stated in its order dated October 11, 1976 on the review petition that the question of non-applicability of the Act to non-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
