LexPALAYI KIZHAKKEKARA MATHAIY'S SON K.M. MATHEW & ANR. versus POTHIYILL MOMMUTTYS SON HAMSA HAJI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PALA YI KIZHAKKEKARA MATHAIY'S SON
K.M. MATHEW & ANR.
v.
POTHIYILL MOMMUTTY'S SON HAMSA HAJI & ORS.
APRIL 29, 1987
[A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, :J.]
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963-Section 7D-Persons whose
occupation of private forests or unsurveyed lands has a lawful origin-
Entitled to protection-Persons in unlawful occupation based on tres-
pass or forcible and unlawful entry-Not entitled to protection.
Section 7D of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Act 1 of
1964-as amended by Act 35 of 1969 provides that a person occupying
private forests or unsurveved lands shall be deemed to be a tenant if he
A
B
c
or his predecessor-in-interest was continuously in occupation of such
land for not less than two years within a period of 12 years immediately D
precedings the 11th day of April, 1969.
In the instant case, the High Court while interpreting s. 7D took
the view that the benefit of s. 7D would apply only to persons whose
occupation of the private forests or unsurveyed lands had a lawful
origin and not to persons in unlawful occupation based on trespass or E
forcible and unlawful entry.
In the appeal to this Court also the sole question concerning the
interpretation of s. 7D was raised.
Dismissing the appeal and the special leave petitions,
HELD: 1. On a careful scrutiny of the provisions contained in
ss. 7 A to 7C and ss. 8 and 9 of the Act it is clear that the intention of the
legislature was to grant protection only to persons whose possession had
F
a lawful origin in the sense that they had either bona fide believed the
lands to be Government's lands of which they could later seek assign-
G
ment or had taken the lands on lease from persons whom they bona fide
believed to be competent to grant such leases or had come into posses·
sion with the intention of attorning to the lawful owners or on the basis
of arrangements like varam etc. which were only in the nature of
licences and fell short of a leasehold right. It was not within the contem·
plation of the legislature to confer the benefit of protection on persons H
109
.,..
-·--
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987) 3 S.C.R.
A
who had wilfully trespassed upon lands belonging to others and whose
occupation was unlawful in its origin. [114A·C)
2. The expression "in occupation" occurring in s. 70 must be
construed as meaning "in lawful occupation". [114C]
B
3. In the present case, the finding of fact entered by the High
c
Court is that the appellant had come into possession of the lands by
trespass. His plea before the Courts below was that he was himself the
owner of the area having acquired title to it by adverse possession. In
such circumstances the High Court was fully justified in holding that
the appellant was not entitled to the protection ofs. 70. [1140]
[In view of the offer made by the respondents that they are pre-
pared to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.50,000 as ex-gratia payment .
in full and final settlement of hi:; claim, the Court directed that an
amount of Rs.50,000 shall be deposited by the respondents in trial
Court within three months with liberty to appellant to withdraw the
D 'ame without furnishing any security. [114E)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 165
of 1974 etc.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 22. 10.1973 of the Kerala
E High Court in S.A. No. 580 of 1970.
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and N. Sudhakaran for the Appel-
Ian ts.
P.S. Poti, S.B. Saharya and Ms. Ratna Nair for the Res-
F pondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. After hearing Counsel appearing
on both sides we do not find any merit in this appeal and the Special
G Leave Petitions.
H
The sole question raised before us in the appeal concerns the
interpretation of Section 7D of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-
Act I of 1964-as amended by Act, 35 of 1969. That section reads-
"70. Certain persons occupying private forests or unsur-
I
t
PALAY! KIZHAKKEKARA v. POTHIYILL {ERADI. J.J
111
veyed lands to be deemed tenants-Notwithstanding any-
A
thing to the contrary contained in section 52 or any other
provi;ion of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or any
other law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any
judgment, decree or order of court, any person in occupa-
tion at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 1969, of the land of another situate in B
Mal;,'. "u, to which the provisions of the Madras Preserva-
tion or Private ForestExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.