LexSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS versus DR. S.G. SARVOTHAMA PRABHU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. A v. DR. S.G. SARVOTHAMA PRABHU FEBRUARY 26, 1999 (KT. THOMAS AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.] B Tenancy and Land Laws : Kera/a Land Ref01ms Act, 1963 : Sections 81(1)(k) & Proviso, 83, 85(1) and 87(1) Explanation 1. C Exempted /and-Deemed acquisition--Dqte of~e/d : where a land is exempted under S. 81 and such exemption is in force on the notified date (1.1.1970) such land, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, would be deemed to have been acquired under Explanation 1 to S. 87(1)-Hence, High Cowt rightly held that the Taluk Land Board cannot D again initiate proceedings under S. 85 to detennine the ceiling area as on the notified date. Interpretation of Statutes : Basic rules-Legislative intent-Detennination of-Held : Intention of E Legislature to be ascertained from the language of the statute-!/ the words are unambiguous, clear and explicit there need be no recourse to any other rules of interpretation-After such interpretation the law must be applied to the facts of the case iTTespective of the consequence that a person gets the benefit of his own wrong. F The respondent was the owner of a certain land and claimed exemp- tion of the land under Section 81 (1) (k) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ·since the land was set aside for industrial use. But as the land was not actually put to industrial use the Taluk Land Board in a proceeding under Section 85 of the Act directed the respondent to surrender the excess G land. However, the High Court held that the respondent was entitled to avail himself of the exemption since the Collector had not issued any notice under the said proviso to Section Sl(l)(k) of the Act. Thereafter, the Collector issued a notice under the said proviso directing the respon- dent to put the said land to industrial use before 12.12.1982. H 915 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R. A On failure of the respondent to comply with the notice of the Collec· B tor, the Taluk Lank Board initiated a fresh proceeding under Section 85 of the Act, determined the excess land as on the notified date (1.1.1970) and directed the respondent to surrender the excess land. The respondent filed a revision before the High Court, which was allowed. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The language of Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is clear, plain and lucid. Section 87 concerns itself with the surrender of excess land to the authority under the Act where a person C acquires any land after the notified date, i.e. 1.1.1970, by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area. Explanation I to Section 87(1) says that where a land is exempted under Section 81 and such exemption is in force o~ 1.1.1970 then D such land shall, with effect from the date of which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after that date. Sub-section (2) further makes it clear that the provisions of Sections 85 and 86 apply to vesting in the Government of the ownership or possession or both of the lands re- quired to be surrendered under sub-section (1) of Section 87 only. There· E fore, Section 85(1) which deals with surrender of excess land in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date (1.1.1970) cannot be applied in cases falling under the Explanation to Section 87 of the Act whereunder land is deemed to be acquired after that date. [920-H; 921-A·D] 1.2. In the instant case, exemption of the land under Section 81 (1) (k) F which was in force on 1.1.1970, ceased with effect from 12.12.1982. So in view of Explanation I to Section 87 of the Act there will be a deemed acquisition of that land after 1.1.1970. The High Court is, therefore, right in holding that the Taluk Land Board cannot again initiate proceeding under Section 85 of the Act and determine ceiling area as on 1.1.1970. [921-E] G 2. In the instant case, the respondent having claimed the benefit of exemption, enjoyed possession of the land for more than 12 years, defaulted in complying with the requirements of the proviso to Section 81(l)(k), successfully avoided surrender of the land under Section 85(1) on the basis of calculation of the ceiling area as on 1.1.1970 and is thus H getting benefit of his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.