1979 (5) TMI 149 - SC - Indian Laws

Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 upheld: plantation conversions after April 1964 don't qualify for Section 81 exemption

CHETTIAM VEETTIL AMMAD Versus TALUK LAND BOARD

The SC upheld the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 provisions on land ceiling restrictions. The court ruled that lands converted into plantations between ... Validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act) - implementation of the provisions for the restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area and the disposal of excess land - Exemption of lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964, and January 1, 1970, under Section 81(1)(e) of the Act - Whether a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under section 72K of the Act is binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act. Exemption under section 81(1)(e) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The section 82 of the Act (as amended by section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971) is 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 and the surrender of excess land and its vesting in the State Government have been dealt with in the other sections (83, 85 and 86). Sections 83, 85 and 86 contain certain other provisions relating to the law of ceiling on land, but that cannot detract from the basic fact that section 82 contains a provision-in fact an important provision-of the law relating to the imposition of ceiling on land dealt with in Chapter III. It may well be said that sub-section (4) of section 82 is also a provision of the law by itself, for it lays down a distinct rule relating to conversion of lands for observance by all concerned. The court examined the amendments to Section 82(4) and concluded that the expression 'commencement of this Act' refers to April 1, 1964, when Section 82 originally came into force. The amended sub-section (4) of Section 82, which includes the words 'or into a plantation,' came into force from the same date. Thus, the conversion of lands into plantations after April 1, 1964, but before January 1, 1970, does not qualify for exemption under Section 81(1)(e) Point No. 1 is decided against the appellants. Binding Nature of Certificate of Purchase - HELD THAT:- Now the certificate of purchase which the Land Tribunal issues (in the prescribed form) evidences the 'assignment' of the assigned land to the purchaser. Sub-section (2) of section 72K of the Act mentioned above merely declares that the certificate shall be conclusive proof of that 'assignment' of the right, title and interest of the land- owner and the intermediaries (if any) to the tenant in respect of the holding concerned (or portion thereof). There is nothing in the sub-section which could be said to declare that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in those proceedings would be conclusive proof of any other matter which it may determine so as to bind the Taluk and Board or any other authority. Sub-section (2) of section 72K therefore does not, in terms or in substance, impinge on the authority of the Taluk Land Board to discharge its own functions under section 85(5) of the Act. Validity of Transfers with Reference to Ceiling Area - 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 area' referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of that section for examining the question of the validity of the transfers made after September 15, 1963 is the reduced 'ceiling area' specified by the Amending Act of 1969. In the result, the appeals in which only points Nos. 1 and 3 have been raised for our consideration fail and are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Exemption of lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964, and January 1, 1970, under Section 81(1)(e) of the Act.2. Binding nature of a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under Section 72K of the Act on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act.3. Determination of the validity or invalidity of transfers with reference to the ceiling area in force on the date of transfer or the ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969, and whether Section 84(3) is retrospective in operation.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Exemption of Lands Converted into PlantationsThe primary question was whether lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964, and January 1, 1970, qualify for exemption under Section 81(1)(e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Section 81(1)(e) exempts plantations from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act, which deals with restrictions on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area.The court examined the amendments to Section 82(4) and concluded that the expression 'commencement of this Act' refers to April 1, 1964, when Section 82 originally came into force. The amended sub-section (4) of Section 82, which includes the words 'or into a plantation,' came into force from the same date. Thus, the conversion of lands into plantations after April 1, 1964, but before January 1, 1970, does not qualify for exemption under Section 81(1)(e).Issue 2: Binding Nature of Certificate of PurchaseThe court considered whether a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under Section 72K of the Act is binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III. Section 72K(2) states that the certificate is 'conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right, title, and interest of the landowner.'The court held that the certificate of purchase is conclusive proof of the assignment of the right, title, and interest of the landowner to the tenant. However, this does not bind the Taluk Land Board in determining the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered under Section 85(5). The Taluk Land Board can still verify the particulars and ascertain whether the person owns or holds any other land.Issue 3: Validity of Transfers with Reference to Ceiling AreaThe court examined whether the validity of transfers should be determined with reference to the ceiling area in force on the date of transfer or the reduced ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969. Section 84(3), inserted by Act 17 of 1972, clarifies that the 'ceiling area' in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 84 means the ceiling area specified in Section 82(1) as amended by Act 35 of 1969.The court held that Section 84(3) is retrospective in operation, meaning it applies to transfers made after September 15, 1963, with reference to the reduced ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969. The legislative intent was to invalidate voluntary transfers made to defeat the provisions of the Act, even if they were made before the amendment came into force.Separate Judgments Delivered:- C.A. No. 869 of 1979: The High Court shall re-examine the matter in light of the court's decision on the evidentiary value of the purchase certificate.- C.A. No. 876 of 1979: The High Court should re-examine the controversy regarding the purchase certificate.- C.A. No. 877 of 1979: The case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal according to the law regarding the purchase certificate.- C.A. No. 878 of 1979: The High Court shall re-examine its decision regarding the purchase certificate.- C.A. No. 879 of 1979: The High Court shall re-examine the matter in light of the court's decision on the purchase certificate.- C.A. No. 2623 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed as no new point was raised.- C.A. No. 1015 of 1976: The appeal is dismissed; a child in the womb on January 1, 1970, is not a member of the family for purposes of Section 82(1)(c).- C.A. No. 1863 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the claim regarding joint family property was rejected based on parol evidence.- C.A. No. 40 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact that the land is not a commercial site does not call for interference.- C.A. No. 2585 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the High Court did not interfere with the finding of the Taluk Land Board.- C.A. No. 2811 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact against the appellant regarding the coffee plantation and fuel land is upheld.- C.A. No. 227 of 1978: The appeal is allowed to the extent that the Board's decision is restored regarding the fuel area and rested area.- C.A. No. 1309 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the findings of fact regarding the exclusion of land for road and house site are upheld.- C.A. No. 2070 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the will in favor of the grand-daughter was not found to be genuine.- C.A. No. 143 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the unmarried daughters were not entitled to a share in the property under their personal law.- C.A. No. 882 of 1978: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact regarding the partition and separate possession of the daughter is upheld.- C.A. No. 883 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the Taluk Land Board's revision of the earlier order is permissible under Section 85(9).- C.A. No. 362 of 1978: The appeal is dismissed; the finding that Mammad was a minor on January 1, 1970, is upheld.- C.A. No. 881 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the arguments regarding exemption of house and lease land were not advanced in the High Court.- C.A. No. 2587 of 1977: The appeal is dismissed; the alleged tenancy of Varkey was not established.- C.A. No. 895 of 1979: The appeal is allowed; the case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal regarding the purchase certificate.- C.A. No. 894 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact regarding unculturable waste land is upheld.- C.A. No. 870 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the argument regarding the purchase certificate was not advanced in the Board or the High Court.- C.A. Nos. 873 and 874 of 1979: The appeals are dismissed; the High Court's decision regarding the gifted lands is correct.- C.A. No. 875 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the properties received under the partition deed were private properties.- C.A. No. 1019 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact regarding the private forest is upheld.- C.A. No. 890 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact regarding the conversion of land into a plantation is upheld.- C.A. No. 885 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the application to set aside the Taluk Land Board's order was barred by limitation.- C.A. No. 886 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact regarding the arecanut garden is upheld.- C.A. No. 903 of 1979: The appeal is dismissed; the finding of fact regarding the date of birth of the daughter is upheld.- C.A. Nos. 574-575 of 1978: The appeals are dismissed; the finding of fact regarding urban lands is upheld.- C.A. No. 2584 of 1977: The appeal is allowed; the case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal regarding the purchase certificate.- C.A. No. 2586 of 1977: The appeal is allowed; the case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal regarding the exclusion of 23.57 acres of land.In conclusion, the court dismissed the majority of the appeals, upholding the findings of fact and the legal interpretations of the High Court. However, in cases where the evidentiary value of the purchase certificate was a significant issue, the court allowed the appeals and remanded them to the High Court for reconsideration in light of its decision on that point.