P.K. ABRAHAM THARAKAN (D) THROUGH LRS versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 25-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

P.K. ABRAHAM THARAKAN (D) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, 2000 
[S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Umd Laws: 
Kerala Land Reforms Act-Sections 81, 82 and 86-Exemption from 
ceiling limits as land under rubber plantation-Total area of land 122.35 acres 
out of which 95 acres under rubber plantation alOng with 3.5 acres used for 
ancillary pU1poses The balance area was dry land-4 out of 6 sharers of the 
lands availed equal exemption of 20.39 acres each-Claim of other 2 sharers 
for equal exemption rejected by Taluk Land Board as exemption of about 81.56 
acres had already been granted, therefore, 24.30 acres of dry land came to their 
share-Taluk Umd Board mistakenly calculated total area under rubber plan-
tation as 107.25 acres instead of 95 acres-Revision filed befere High Court 
rejected-On appeal, Held; all sharers not entitled to an equal exemption of 
20.39 acres each-Exemption could have been granted onf;y for actual area 
under rubber plantation and the land used for ancillary purposes-About 8156 
acres had already been exempted, therefore, only another 16.34 acres could be 
e.xempted-Excess area exempted due to miscalculation of total area under 
plantation by Taluk Umd Board-Appellants bound to surrender 16.95 acres. 
Appellant are legal heirs of A, whose family consisted of himself, his 
wife and four sons. He had 122.35 acres of land out of which about 24.30 
acres was dry land. He claimed exemption from the ceiling limits for about 
95.25 acres having rubber plantation and about 3.5 acres of land used for 
ancillary purposes under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Each member of 
the family was entitled to 20.39 acres as their share. The four sons claimed 
total exemption on their shares before the Taluk Land Board; which was 
granted. Revision Applications filed by the Government were dismissed. 
Later on, A and his wife claimed exemption on their share of 40.78 
acres. Taluk Land Board took note of the actual land area, dry land, under 
rubber plantation and the land used for ancillary purposes. It held that 
24.30 acres of dry land could only come to their share as the sons had 
already claimed exemption, which was about 81.66 acres. Exemption was 
549 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
granted on the balance area after 24.30 acres was deducted from the total 
plantation area, which was mistakenly taken to be 107.25 acres. High Court 
rejected the Revision Application filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal. 
Appellants contended that all the members of the family had an equal 
share of 20.39 acres; and that orders of Taluk Land Board granting exemp-
tion to the sons had been confirmed in revision therefore, no contrary 
decision could.be taken regarding the parents. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The claim of the parents could not have been accepted 
merely because similar claims by their sons had been accepted. All the six 
sharers were not entitled to an exemption of 20.39 acres each. [552-D] 
2. It is clear from the records, including the declaration made by the 
parents that the rubber plantation was only of. 95 acres, not 107 .25 acres, 
and approximately 3 acres was ancillary land. Exemption could have been 
' granted only for this area, as out of the total area of 122.35 acres approxi-
mately 24.30 acres was dry land, which was neither having rubber planta-
tion nor ancillary land. This area could not be exempted under Sections 81, 
82 and 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. A total area of about 81.66 
acres had already been exempted on the applications of the sons and the 
parents never objected to it. All that could have been exempted after this 
was approximately another 16.34 acres. Taluk Land Board exempted area 
of approximately 24 acres by mistake and granted more than what the 
parties were entitled to High Court did not interfere at the Government did 
not file any revision and there is no reason to interfere at this stage. 
Appellants are bound to surrender an area of 16.95 acres as per directions 
of the High Court. [552-F-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7427 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.97 of the Kerala High Court in 
G 
C.R.P. No. 2386 of 1990. 
Mathai M. Paikaday and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellants. 
G. Prak.ash for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P.K. ABRAHAM THARAKAN v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 
551 
S.N. VARIAVA, J.

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