STATE OF KERALA ETC. versus VARKEY MATHEW AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 12-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KERALA ETC. 
v. 
VARKEY MATHEW AND ORS. ETC. 
DECEMBER 12, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1964-Secs. 2(43), 81, 83, 85(6A), 85(7), 
85(7A)-Computatioll of excess /al!d ow/led or held by a deceaseli--Held, 
C proceedil!gs cal! be illitiated under colour of successors-in-title or illegal 
nteans. 
Respondent No. 1 herein died in 1973 without filing a statement of 
excess lands as provided for under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. 
On the report given by the Special Tahsildar regarding excess land owned 
D by the deceased as on 1.1.1970, the Taluk Land Board passed an order 
initiating proceedings under S.85(7) of the Act of 1964 against the succes· 
sors-in-interest. On the representation of the successors-in-interest the 
Taluk Land Board cancelled its earlier order. The High Court on Revision 
held that since the proceedings were not initiated against the owner before 
his death, it cannot be initiated against the legal representathcs and that 
E even the Amendment by Sec. 85(6A) as against abatement of proceedings 
would not enable the State to proceed against the Respondents. 
In this Appeal, it was contended by the Appellant that once the 
person who mms the land is bound to file a statement under Sec. 85(2) or 
F 
85(3A), his estate still continues to be in excess of the ceiling limit and that 
the computation is against the estate of the deceased and therefore the 
successors-in-interest are liable to account for the excess land and com-
putation thereof is done as per law. 
The Respondents contended that the word "Person" in Section 2(43) 
G does not include the legal representatives or the successors-in-interest; 
that the legislature having realised the lacuna amended and brought on 
statute Section 85 (6A) which prohibits abatement of the pending proceed· 
ings, and that therefore the legal representatives or successors-in-interest 
who succeed to the estate of the deceased are not liable to be proceeded 
H with under Section 85(7) or 85(7A). 
642 
STATEOFKERALA v. VARKEYMATI!EW 
643 
Allowing the appeals this court 
A 
HELD : 1. The persons who succeeds to the estate of the deceased 
found to be in possession or holds land in excess under colour of title or 
by illegal means would also be liable to be proceeded with under Section 
85(7) of the Kerala land Reforms Act, in computation of the excess land 
owned or held by the deceased person. [646-B] 
B 
2. Section 86(7) was made explicit by Section 85(6A) and the conse-
quences of abatement due to the death of a person was statutorily annihi-
lated. The person who succeeds to the estate according to law and have the 
lands under him would be in a better position than the person covered C 
under pending proceedings envisaged under Section 85(6A). [645-F, HJ 
CIVIL APPcLLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2620 of 
1989 ETC. 
From the Judgment Order dated 14.7.87 of th Kerala High Court in D 
C.R.P. No. 2731 of 1982. 
M.T. George for the Appellants. 
P.K. Manohar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appeals arise from the orders of the single Judge of the Kerala 
High Court made in CRP No. 2731J82 dated July 14, 1987. The admitted 
facts are that Kerala Land Reforms Act 1964 was enforced w.e.f. January 
E 
1, 1970 and by operation thereof the entire excess land stood vested in the 
F 
State. Section 85 of the Act prescribes procedure for computation of the 
excess -land. Under s.85(2), where a person owns or holds land in excess 
of the ceiling area such person shall within a period of three months from 
the date notified under s.83, file a statement before the Land Board 
intimating the location, extent and such other particulars as may be 
prescribed, of all the lands including lands exempted under s.81 owned or G 
held by such person indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. 
Admittedly, respondent Varkey Mathew did not file the statements and.he 
died in 1973. The Special Tehsildar submitted his report regarding excess 
land owned by the deceased as on 1..1.1970 by his proceeding dated April 
6, 1978. The Taluk Land Board passed an order on July 15, 1978 initiating H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A the proceedings under s.85(7) against the respondents. On representation 
made by the respondents by proceedings dated September 26, 1981, the 
Board cancelled its earlier order finding that the earlier order was not 
legal. When it was ques

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