THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KAZHIKODE AND ORS. versus DR. BABUCOMMEN THOMAS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 17-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KAZHIKODE AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DR. BABUCOMMEN THOMAS 
AUGUST 17, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
The Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1963 : 
Ss.82(4), 84(1), 85(1), Explanation (a}-Agricultural land-Ceiling 
area-Cashewnut estate sold after publication of Kera/a Land Refomis Bill, 
C 
1963-Held, the sale is void and of no effect-Not exempted by clause (a) of 
Explanation to s.85(1). 
The respondent purchased cashewnut estate on April 16,1969. Sec-
tion 84(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 provided that all volun-
tary transfer effected after the date of publication of the Kerala Land D 
Reforms Bill, 1963 i.e., 1.4.1964, would be deemed to be transfers calculated 
to defeat the provisions of the Act and would be invalid. The High Court 
decided in favour of the respondent-purchaser holding that the land got 
exempted by clause (a) of the Explanation to s.85(1) of the Act. Aggrieved, 
the State filed the appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The transfer was effected within the prohibited period, 
namely between April 1, 1964 and January 1, 1970. Therefore, the sale is a 
void sale and is of no effect. The respondents cannot save the cashewnut F 
estate purchased under the void sale, from the purview of the Kerala Land 
Reforms Act, 1963. [814-B] 
1.2. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the land got 
exempted by clause (a) of the Explanation to section 85(1) of the Act. G 
Voluntary transfers which are void, cannot be saved in computing the 
excess land under Section 85 of the Act. Under clause (a) of the Explana-
tion to s.85(1), the transfers effected within the prohibited period and 
saved by sub-s.(1) of Section 84 were treated to be valid transfers and to 
that extent they cannot have any effect while directing surrender of the 
excess land. [814-E; DJ 
H 
811 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
P.J Thomas v. Taluk Land Board and Ors., (1993] Suppl. 1SCC300, 
relied on. 
State of Kera/a v. Philomina Etc. Etc. & Ors., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 273, 
referred to. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7830 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.89 of the Kerala High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 879 of 1989. 
C 
M. T. George for the State. 
S. Balakrishnan for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
Leave granted. 
Respondent admittedly had purchased cashewnut estate on April 16, 
..: 
1969. The State Government of Kerala introduced the Land Reforms Bill, 
1963 on April 1, 1964. One of the clauses relates to taking away exemption 
of cashew nut estate or its conversion from the purview of the Kerala Land 
E 
Reforms Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Act']. The Bill was made Act 35 of 1969 
with affect from January 1, 1970. Section 82(4) of the Act declares that 
where after the commencement of the Act, any class of land specified in 
Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in 
that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of land liable to be sur-
F 
rendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined 
without taking into consideration such conversion. Section 84 (1) reads 
thus: 
"84. Certain voluntary transfers to be null and void. - (1) Not-
withstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in 
G 
force, all voluntary transfers effected after the date of publication 
of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, in the Gazette, otherwise 
than-
(i) by way of partition; or 
H 
x x x x x x x x x x x x 
TALUK LAND BOARD v. DR. B. THOMAS 
813 
..... 
(iii) in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding A 
before the 27th July, 1960, and continued to be so till the date 
of transfer; 
x x x x x x x x x x x x 
by a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person B 
owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area or otherwise 
than by way of gift in favour of his son or daughter or the son or 
daughter of his pre-deceased son or daughter by any person 
· owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall be deemed 
to be trans/ ers calculated to def eat the provisions of this Act and c 
shall be invalid." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
The voluntary sale is not one of the exempted transfer mentioned in 
Section 84(1). On the other hand, all voluntary transfers other than those D 
excepted, should be deemed to be transfers calculated. to defeat the 
provisions of the Act and should be invalid. The question, therefore, is 
whether
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.