LexNAJEEB AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 959 NAJEEB AND ORS. A II. STATE OF KERALA (Civil Appeal No. 1910 of 2002) MARCH 3, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM . ANO AFTAB ALAM, JJ,] JS~ra/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - ss.81(1)(t)(iii) - ExemP/ion of land under - Question as to whether the entire c income from the property in dispute was appropriated for the benefit of Wakf and whether the property was liable to be exempted under s.81(1}(t}(fil) - Taluk Land Board proceeded to exempt 2. 67. 250 acres of land under s. 81 (1 )(t)(iii) - Respondent.state filed civil revision petition - With reference 0 ~ t to s. 81 (1 )(t)(iii), the High Court held that ft had to be shown that the land was owned or held by a public trust which expression included a Wakf, but there was nothing to show that the la.nds In question were owned or held by a pub/le trust on the appointed day, I.e. 1.1.1970 to which date exemption under s. 81 relates - Holding that the dec/arant-appellant failed E to prove that the land in question qualified for exemption, High Court allowed tha revision petition - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - Question of exemption arises when land In , excess of the permissible limit is held by a public trust and exemption Is sought for on the basis of what is provided in the F t proviso (I) or (Ii) ~ It is not the case of the State that the Wakf in issue was required to be registered~ Appel/ants wflrn dlre9fed to file affidavit along with documents to show that the property stood in the name of Madrassa - Documents fl/ed show that the settlement deeds were exeouted in the years 1952, 1958, 0 1962 and 1966. The predee@S§Qr of deel~mmt·!!IPPellant hacl flied a $@tement under §.85 e>f the Kera!!!! !...and Reform§ Aet, 9~9 H 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. A 1963. On the question as to whether the entire income from the property in dispute was appropriated for the r ., benefit of Wakf and whether the property was liable to be exempted under Section 81(1)(t)(iii) of the Act, the Taluk Land Board accepted the report of an authorised officer B to the effect that a Madrassa registered with the Kerala Wakf Board was functioning and that income from certain lands having an extent of 2.67.250 acres was being used+ ' for the purpose of the Madrassa. Thereafter the Taluk Land Board proceeded to exempt 2.67.250 acres of Ian~ ynder c Section 81 (1 )(t)(iii) of the Act. It held that the declari«t was liable to surrender only an extent of 0.26.250 acres of land. Respondent-State filed civil revision petition under s.103 of the Act contending that the property held by the so-called Wakf of which the declarant was Muthavalli was D to be included while determining the extent of land held • by the predecessors of the appellant. High Court with f reference to Section 81 (1 )(t)(ill) of the Act held that it had to be shown that t~e land was owned or held by a public trust which expression included a Wakf and the proviso E thereto provides that the exemption is available to a public trust only if the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the trust concerned. The Court held that there was nothing to show that these lands were owned or held by a public trust on the appointed day, i.e. 1.1.1970 to which F date exemption under Section 81 relates and further that • the declarailt-appellant failed to prove that the land in question qualified for the exemption. Accordingly, it 1 allowed the civil revision petition. Hence the present appeal. · G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 81(1)(t)(iii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 relates to exemption. The proviso . thereto has no role to play while dealing with the question 1 ~ H whether the land was to be included in the holding of the NAJEEB AND ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 961 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 'i declarant. The question of exemption arises only when A " land in excess of the permissible limit is held by a public trust and exemption is sought for on the basis of what is provided in the proviso (i) or (ii). It is not the case of the State that the Wakf was required to be registered. [Para 9] [965- E, F] B • 1.2. This Court by an earlier order· had directed the appellants to file an affidavit along with documents to show that the property stands in the name of the Madrassa. The documents filed clearly show that the settlement deeds were executed ln the years 1952, 1958, c 1962 and 1966.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.