Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
P.J. THOMAS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1992
BENCH:
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
BENCH:
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
KANIA, M.H. (CJ)
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 1144 1992 SCR (2) 147
1993 SCC Supl. (1) 300 JT 1992 (2) 307
1992 SCALE (1)667
ACT:
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 :
Section 81 to 84- Ceiling area-Computation of-Cashew
estate exempted from Ceiling-Exemption withdrawn from
1.1.1970-Conversion of Cashew estate into rubber plantation
in 1967-Whether rubber plantation eligible for exemption.
HEADNOTE:
Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963,
containing sections 81 to 98A relating to restriction on
ownership and possession of land in excess of Ceiling Area,
came into force on 1.4.1964. However, Section 82 came into
force on 1.1.1970, the appointed day. Under this Section the
Ceiling area of land which an individual or a family,as the
case may be, was entitled to hold was fixed. In computing
the ceiling area the lands exempted under Section 82 was to
be excluded. Sub-section (4) of the Section provided that
where, after the commencement of the Act, any class of land
specified in Schedule II had been converted into any other
class of land specified in that Schedule or into a
plantation, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a
person owning or holding such land should be determined,
without taking into consideration such conversion.
Section 81(1)(f), as it originally stood exempted
cashew estates existing at the commencement of the Act, and
having a contiguous extent of ten acres or more from the
operation of Chapter III. This exemption was however, taken
away by a subsequent amendment by Act. No. 35 of 1969, and
,as on 1.1.1970, cashew estate, having an extent of ten
acres or more was liable to be included in the computation
of the ceiling area. Under Section 81(1)(e), ‘Plantation’,
as defined under the Act was also exempted. Plantation was
also specified in Schedule II.
Under Section 84, all voluntary transfers effected
after the date of publication of Kerala Land Reforms Bill,
1963, by a family or any member
148
there of holding land in excess of the ceiling area were
deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions
of the Act and invalid.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
On 1.1.1970, when Section 82 of the Act came into
force, the appellant was holding 31 acres 6.5 cents of land,
including 14.5 acres of rubber plantation, which was
originally cashew estate. The appellant had converted the
casew estate into rubber plantation in 1967. His claim for
exempting the rubber plantation from the computation under
Section 81(1)(e) was rejected by the Taluk Land Board, in
view of the provisions in sub-section (4) of Section 82,
since cashew estate was not an exempted category on
1.1.1970. In revision, the High Court . affirmed the Taluk
Land Board’s decision.
In the appeal before this court, on behalf of the
appellant, it was contended that a conversion of land
falling under one exempted category to another exempted
category did not come under the mischief of sub-section (4)
of Section 82, and that the provisions of Chapter III did
not apply to the lands specified in Section 81 and that
since plantation was not included in sub-section (4) of
Section 82 as it stood before 1.1.1970 and was included only
with effect from 1.1.1970, the conversion of cashew estate
into plantation before the amendment was not attracted by
the said sub-section.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD:1.1 The transfer falling under Section 84 cannot be
equated to the conversion falling under Section 82(4). The
ceiling provisions contained in section 82 and 83 came into
force on 1.1.1970. The computation of the ceiling area has
to be made in accordance with the provisions contained under
section 82 as it stood on 1.1.1970. Under sub-section (4) of
section 82 where any class of land specified in Schedule II
has been converted into a plantation after the commencement
of the Act, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a
person owning or holding such land has to be determined
without taking into consideration such conversion. Cashew
estate is land specified in Schedule II as on 1.4.1964 as
well as on 1.1.1970. Therefore, the conversion of cashew
estate after 1.4.1964 and before 1.1.1970 into plantation
would squarely fall under the mischief of this sub-section.
The fact that cashew estate was an exempted category until
1.1.1970 does not make any difference so long as the
exemption was not available as on 1.1.1970 when the
computation was to be made. If the exemption continued on
1.1.1970, sub-section
149
section (6) would entitle the holder to have the land
excluded under the provisions of sub-section (6). Since the
computation is made as on 1.1.1970 and the land held as on
that date ignoring the conversion effected after 1.4.1964
is not exempted, the case has no analogy to the transfer of
exempted land prior to 1.1.1970 falling under clause (1). At
the time when the transfer was effected the land was
exempted. The provision of section 82 was not applicable.
It is for that reason that the transfer has to be held
valid. So far as conversion is concerned, the land
continues to be held by the owner and the law is clear
that such conversion is to be ignored in computing the
ceiling area.[153G-H, 154A-E]
1.2 In the instant case the land, in question, was
cashew estate prior to 1.4.1964 and it has been converted
into rubber plantation after that date and before 1.1.1970.
As the conversion has to be ignored, the land could be
treated only as cashew estate for the purpose of computation
and not as plantation. Therefore, the exemption claimed by
the appellant has been rightly rejected. [154F]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
JUDGMENT:
State of Kerala v. Philomina , AIR 1976 SC 2363,
distinguished.
Chettiam Veettil Ammad V. Taluk Land Board, [1979] 3
SCR 839, referred to.
State of Kerala v. Thomas, (1987) 1 KLT 530, Ramunni
Nair v. State of Kerala, (1976) KLT 632 and Aleykutty John.
v. Taluk Land Board,(1981) KLT 731, referred to.
&
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2247 of
1992.
From the Judgement and Order dated 10.10.80 of the
Kerala High Court in C.R.P.No 3783 of 1977-A.
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and Mrs. K.
Prasanthi for the Appellants.
Joseph Vellapally, K.R. Nambiar and P.K. Pillai for the
Respondents.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Leave granted.
150
This appeal arising from proceedings under the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), as amended by Act
35 of 1969, raises the question of exemption provided under
section 81 of the Act.
The Act is enacted as a comprehensive legislation
relating to land reforms in the State of Kerala. The
respective provisions of the Act came into force on the
appointed days as notified by the Government. Different days
had been appointed for different provisions. Chapter III
containing section 81 to 98A relates to the restriction on
ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area
and disposal of excess lands. Except section 83, the other
provision in this chapter came into force on 1.4.1964
1.1.1970 had been notified as the appointed day on which
section 82 was to be enforced.
Under section 82, the ceiling area of land which an
individual or family, as the case may be, is entitled to
hold has been fixed. In computing the ceiling area the
lands exempted under section 82 shall be excluded. Section
82(4) reads-
"s.82(4). Where, after the commencement of this
Act, any class of land specified in Schedule II has
been converted into any other class of land
specified in that Schedule or into a plantation,
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."
Section 2(55) defines "standard acre" thus-
"s.2(55)."standard acre" means in relation to any
class of land specified in Scheduled II situate in
the district or Taluk mentioned therein, the extent
of land specified against it in that Schedule."
Schedule II specifies the class of land and extent of
land specified for the purpose of conversion as standard
acres. Dry land principally cultivated with cashew is
specified under Schedule II as equivalent to two standard
acres. Section 81(1)(f), as it originally stood exempted
cashew estates existing at the commencement of the Act and
having a contiguous extent of ten acres or more from the
operation of Chapter III. Thus at the commencement of the
Act cashew estates having a contiguous extent of ten
151
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
acres or more was an exempted category. This exemption was
taken away by a subsequent amendment by Act 35 of 1969.
Thus, as on 1.1.1970 cashew estate having an extent of ten
acres or more was liable to be included in the computation
of the ceiling area. "Plantation" has been defined in
section 2(44) thus-
"s.2(44)." Plantation" means any land used by a
person principally for the cultivation of tea,
coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon
(hereinafter in this clause referred to as
‘plantation crops’) and includes-
(a) land used by the said person for any purpose
ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops or
for the preparation of the same for the market;
(b) Land contiguous to, or in the vicinity of, or
within the boundaries of, the area cultivated with
plantation crops, not exceeding twenty per cent of
the area so cultivates and reserved by the said
person and fit for the expansion of such
cultivation;
(c) agricultural lands, interspersed within the
boundaries of the area cultivated by the said
person with plantation crops, not exceeding such
extent as may be determined by the Land Board or
the Taluk Land Board as necessary for the
protection and efficient management of such
cultivation.
Explanation :- Lands used for the construction of
office buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for
workmen, hospitals, school and play ground shall be
deemed to be lands used for the purpose of sub-
clause(a)."
"Plantation", as defined in the Act, is exempted under
clause(e) of sub-section(1) of section 81. "Plantation " is
also land specified in Schedule II.
The appellant, as on 1.1.1970, was holding 31 acres 6.5
cents of land. This includes 14.5 acres of rubber
plantation which was originally cashew estate. The
appellant converted cashew estate into rubber plantation in
1967. The claim for exempting the rubber plantation from
the computation was rejected by the Taluk Land Board in view
of the provisions in sub-section (4) of section 82 on the
ground that cashew estate was not an exempted
152
category on 1.1.1970. The High Court in revision affirmed
the decision of the Taluk Land Board on this point.
The appellant, while reiterating the claim for
exemption under section 81(1)(e), has urged that a
conversion of land falling under one exempted category to
another exempted category does not come under the mischief
of sub-section(4) and, therefore, the impugned decision is
wrong. Shri Krishnamurthy Iyer, the senior counsel for
the appellant, maintains that the provisions of Chapter III
d;o not apply to the lands specified in section 81 and if
the provisions do not apply, section 82(4) in Chapter III
can have no application to plantation. It is therefore,
argued that conversion of any land into plantation is not
attracted by sub-section (4) of section 82. Another limb of
his argument is that sub-section (4) of section 82 has been
amended from time to time and as it stood before 1.1.1970,
plantation was not included in that sub-section. Since
plantation has been included only with effect from 1.1.1970,
the conversion of cashew estate into plantation before the
amendment is not attracted by the sub-section. The learned
counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in State
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
of Kerala v. Philomina, AIR 1976 SC 2363. That decision
related to transfer falling under section 84(3). Kayal
Padasekharams of Kuttanad area specified in Schedule IV so
long as such padasekharams are used for the cultivation of
paddy or such other crops as the Government may notify, had
been exempted under clause (I) of sub-section (1) of section
81. This clause was, however, omitted by Act 35 of 1964.
Under section 84 all voluntary transfers effected after the
date of publication of Kerala Land Reforms Bill,1963 by a
family or any member thereof holding land in excess of the
ceiling area shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to
defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid. In
State of kerala v. Thomas, (1987) 1 KLT 530, the question
arose whether voluntary transfers of Kayal Padasekharams
made between 15.9.63 and 1.1.70 were invalid. The High Court
of Kerala held that such transfers were valid. That
decision was affirmed by this Court in State of Kerala v.
Philomina (supra). On the ratio of this decision it was
maintained that the provision contained in section 84(3) did
not have any repercussion at all on the exemptions granted
under section 81(1) was not effected. This Court stated
thus-
"So even though by virtue of section 84 of the Act
all voluntary transfers effected after September
15, 1963 (date of publication of Kerala Land
Reforms Bill, 1963 in the Gazette) were
153
invalid, the transfers made in respect of Kayal
padasekharams in appeals No. 907-909 could not be
held to be invalid for the simple reason that they
were exempt from the provisions of Chapter III.
That exemption was no doubt withdrawn by section 65
of Act 35 of 1969 which amended the Act but it is
not disputed before us that the section was not
brought into force until January 1, 1970. The
Voluntary transfers made between September 15,1963
and January 1, 1970 were therefore valid, and there
is no force in the argument of the Advocate General
that the amendment brought about by section 65 of
Act 35 of 1969 should be given retrospective effect
from April 1, 1964 as Section 82 and 84 of the Act
were brought into force from that date. There is
also no force in the other argument of the Advocate
General that Section 84 had the effect of
invalidating the transfers effected after September
15, 1963 for that was the date of publication of
the Kerala Land Reforms Bill in the gazette. The
argument overlooks the fact that, as has been
mentioned, Kayal lands were exempt from the
provisions of Chapter III until as late as January
1.1970.
It is well settled that a statute is not to be read
retrospectively except of necessity. There is no
such necessity in the cases before us, for the
legislature decided to exempt the aforesaid Kayal
lands from the operation of the restrictions and
even though amending Act 35 of 1969 was promulgated
on December 17,1969. Section 65 therefore which
withdrew the exemption, was not brought into force
until January 1,1970."
It is argued that the same principle should be applied
in respect of exemption falling under clause(F) of sub-
section(1) of section 81. Reliance has also been placed on
Full Bench decision in Ramunni Nair v. State of Kerala,
(1976) KLT 632 and Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
Board, [1979] 3 SCR 839.
The transfer falling under section 84 cannot be equated
to the conversion falling under section 82(4). The ceiling
provisions contained in section 82 and 83 came into force on
1.1.1970. The Computation of the ceiling area has to be
made in accordance with the provisions contained
154
under section 82 as it stood on 1.1.1970. Under sub-
section(4) of section 82 where any class of land specified
in Scheduled II has been converted into a plantation after
the commencement of the Act, the extent of land liable to
be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land has
to be determined without taking into consideration such
conversion. Cashew estate is land specified in Scheduled II
as on 1.4.1964 as well as on 1.1.1970 Therefore, the
conversion of cashew estate after 1.4.1964 and before
1.1.1970 into plantation would squarely fall under the
mischief of this sub-section. The fact that cashew estate
was an exempted category until 1.1.1970 does not make any
difference so long as the exemption was not available as on
1.1.1970 when the computation was to be made. If the
exemption continued on 1.1.1970, sub-section(6) would
entitle the holder to have the land excluded under the
provisions of sub-section(6). Since the computation is made
as on 1.1.1970 and the land held as on that date ignoring
the conversion effected after 1.4.1964 is not exempted the
case has no analogy to the transfer of exempted land prior
to 1.1.1970 falling under clause (1). At the time when the
transfer was effected the land was exempted. The provision
of section 82 was not applicable. It is for that reason
that the transfer has to be held valid. So far as
conversion is concerned, the land continue to be held by the
owner and the law is clear that such conversion is to be
ignored in computing the ceiling area. There is, therefore,
no force in the contention advanced on the basis of
aforesaid decision.
We shall also refer to the decision of the Kerala High
Court in Aleykutty John v. Taluk Land Board, (1981) KLT 731
and Ramunni Nair v. State of Kerala, (1976) KLT 632. There
has not been serious controversy on the fact that the land
in question was cashew estate prior to 1.4.1964 and that it
had been converted into rubber plantation after that date
and before 1.1.1970. As the conversion has to be ignored the
land could be treated only as cashew estate for the purpose
of computation and not as plantation. The Exemption claimed
has been rightly rejected.
There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly
dismissed.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.
155