LexP. J. THOMAS versus TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P. J. THOMAS v. TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS. MARCH 12, 1992 [M.H. KANIA, CJ, N.M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 : A B Sections 81 to 84-Ceiling area-Computation of-Cashew estate ex- C empted from Ceiling-Exemption withdrawn from 1.1.197(}-Conversion of Cashew estate into rubber plantation in 1967-Whether rubber plantation eligi.ble for exemption. Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, containing sec- tions 81 to 98A relating to restriction on ownership and possession of land D 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 E 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 consideratfon such conversion. Section 81(1)(1), 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 F was however, taken away by a subsequent amendment by Act. No. 35 of 1969, and, as on 1.l.1970, cashew estate, having an extent of ten acres or G 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 H 147 148 liUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R. A thereof holding land in excess of the ·ceiling area were deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Ad and invalid. B c 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 con- verted the cashew estate into rubber plantation in 1967. His claim for exempting the rubber plantation from the computation under Section 8l(l)(e) was rejected by the Taluk Land Board, in view ofthe 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 Boar.d'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 . ..k. to another eJ:empted category did not come under the mischief of sub-sec- tion (4) of Section 82, and that the provisions of Chapter III did not apply D 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. · E 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 sections 82 and 83 came into force on 1.1.1970. The computation of the F 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 1_ surrendered by a person owning or holding such land has to be determined without taking into consideration such conversion. Cashew·estate is land G 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 planta- tiou 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 -r difference so long a_, the exemption was not available as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.