CHETTIAM VEETTIL AMMAD AND ANR. versus TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 02-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

83 9 
CHETTIAM VEETTIL AMMAD AND ANR. 
v. 
TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS. 
May 2, 1979 
(P. N. SHINGHAL AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963, Sections 81, 82, 82(4), 84(3) & 84(5)-
Scope of. 
The Kerala State Legislature felt the necessity of making cornpreh'ensive 
\ 
~ land reforms in the State. 
The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act IV 
.of 1961) was accordingly passed and receiv'ed the assent of the President on 
January 21, 1961. Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect 
from February 15, 1961. 
That Act was struck down as unconstitutional by 
• 
• 
, 
this Court. 
The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants a.nd Kud'ikidappukars Protection 
Act, 1962 was then paSBed for the temporary protection of t'enants in those 
taluks. 
The .K'erala High Court declared it null and void iin its application 
to the ryotwari lands of the Malabu area and most of the lands of Travancore 
area. 
As an interim legis-1ation, the Ker&la Tenants and Kudikidappukars Pro-
1ection Act 1963 was passed to provide some protection to the tenants. But it 
repealed the Keral& Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 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 refonns as a 
whole, the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 was published in the Slate Gazette 
on Sept. 15, 1963. It covered a wide field in th'e matter of land reforms and, 
inter alia, provided for the imposition of a ceiling on 'holdings' of lands, the 
surrend'er of excess of lands, grant of compensation thereof, and the assignment 
of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order of priority mentioned 
in the Bill, collection of purchase price, constitution of Land Tribunals etc, 
The Land Reforms Act 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) received the assent of the Presi-
dent on Dec., 31, 1963. It was amended extensively, and in several 1natcrial 
particulars by Act, 35 of 1969, Act 25 of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972. 
The following three main points of controversy arose in the appeals : 
1. Whether lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964 a.nd 
January l, 1970 qualified for exemption under s. 8I(l)(e) of the Act. 
2. Whether a certificate of purchas'e issued by the Land Tribunal under 
s. 72K of the Act was binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under 
-Chapter III of the Act. 
3. Whether the validity or invalidity of transfers effected by persons owning 
or holding lands exceeding the ceiling limit could be detennined with reference 
• 
1o the ceiling area in force on the date of the transfer or in accordance with 
1he ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969-whether sub-section (3) of 6. 
~4 was retrospective in operation. 
HELD : Point No. 1. The controversy is whether the restriction 
of 
sub· 
section (4) of section 82 came into force on January ·1, 1970, beca.ure section 
12 of the amending Act of 1971 was brought into forc'e on that date, or 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1979] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
whether it came ii1to force on April 1, 19641 when section 82 as originally 
enacted came into force. 
[853H, 854G] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
All the three Acts contain provisions about their "commencement". 
Sub-
section (3) of s'ection 1 of the Act provides that : (i) Section 1 of the Act 
shall come into force at once, (ii) the other provisions of the A.ct shall con1e 
into force on such dates as the Government may appoint, (iii) <liilerent d"te:-. 
may be appointed for 
different 
prov1s1ons 
of the 
Act, 
and 
(iv) 
any 
reference in a'ny such provision to the "commencement of 
th:s 
Act" 
shall 
be construed as a reference to the corning into for.::e of that provision. 
The 
Act was published in the Gazette on January 14, 1964, ;.•.1d. by vir1ue of 
section 3 of the Ker&la Interpretation and General Clau3es Act, section 1 
came into force on that date. Sec. 82, as has been sta!ed, came into for.:e on 
-
• 
April 1, 1964, and the reference in sub-section ( 4) of that sectieo.1 to the _ 
"commencement of this A•;::t" meant a reference to the coming into force of J 
that provision with effect from April 1, 1964. 
It may be that the firs.t three 
rules or directions contained in .sub-section (3) were spent on the 
com:~1g 
into force of sec. 1 of the Act or its other provisions on th'e dates appointed 
for them, but, for obvious reasons, rule (iv) continued to hold the field 
inasmuch as it laid down the rule of construction that a1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.