# 83 9 CHETTIAM VEETTIL AMMAD AND ANR v. TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1979] 3 S.C.R. 839
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-05-02
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1015 OF 1976
- **Bench:** P. N. Shinghal, 0. Chinnappa Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/83-9-chettiam-veettil-ammad-and-anr-v-taluk-land-board-and-ors-7812
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963, Sections 81, 82, 82(4), 84(3) & 84(5)-
Scope of.
The Kerala State Legislature felt the necessity of making cornpreh'ensive
\
~ land reforms in the State.
The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act IV
.of 1961) was accordingly passed and receiv'ed the assent of the President on
January 21, 1961. Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect
from February 15, 1961.
That Act was struck down as unconstitutional by
•
•
,
this Court.
The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants a.nd Kud'ikidappukars Protection
Act, 1962 was then paSBed for the temporary protection of t'enants in those
taluks.
The .K'erala High Court declared it null and void iin its application
to the ryotwari lands of the Malabu area and most of the lands of Travancore
area.
As an interim legis-1ation, the Ker&la Tenants and Kudikidappukars Pro1ection Act 1963 was passed to provide some protection to the tenants. But it
repealed the Keral& Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act,
1962, and suspended the operation of the
Kerala Agrarian
Relations
Act,
1960. After re-examining the requirements in the field of land refonns as a
whole, the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 was published in the Slate Gazette
on Sept. 15, 1963. It covered a wide field in th'e matter of land reforms and,
inter alia, provided for the imposition of a ceiling on 'holdings' of lands, the
surrend'er of excess of lands, grant of compensation thereof, and the assignment
of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order of priority mentioned
in the Bill, collection of purchase price, constitution of Land Tribunals etc,
The Land Reforms Act 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) received the assent of the President on Dec., 31, 1963. It was amended extensively, and in several 1natcrial
particulars by Act, 35 of 1969, Act 25 of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972.
The following three main points of controversy arose in the appeals :
1. Whether lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964 a.nd
January l, 1970 qualified for exemption under s. 8I(l)(e) of the Act.
2. Whether a certificate of purchas'e issued by the Land Tribunal under
s. 72K of the Act was binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under
-Chapter III of the Act.
3. Whether the validity or invalidity of transfers effected by persons owning
or holding lands exceeding the ceiling limit could be detennined with reference
•
1o the ceiling area in force on the date of the transfer or in accordance with
1he ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969-whether sub-section (3) of 6.
~4 was retrospective in operation.
HELD : Point No. 1. The controversy is whether the restriction
of
sub·
section (4) of section 82 came into force on January ·1, 1970, beca.ure section
12 of the amending Act of 1971 was brought into forc'e on that date, or
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
whether it came ii1to force on April 1, 19641 when section 82 as originally
enacted came into force.
[853H, 854G]
B
c
D
E
F
G
All the three Acts contain provisions about their "commencement".
Subsection (3) of s'ection 1 of the Act provides that : (i) Section 1 of the Act
shall come into force at once, (ii) the other provisions of the A.ct shall con1e
into force on such dates as the Government may appoint, (iii) <liilerent d"te:-.
may be appointed for
different
prov1s1ons
of the
Act,
and
(iv)
any
reference in a'ny such provision to the "commencement of
th:s
Act"
shall
be construed as a reference to the corning into for.::e of that provision.
The
Act was published in the Gazette on January 14, 1964, ;.•.1d. by vir1ue of
section 3 of the Ker&la Interpretation and General Clau3es Act, section 1
came into force on that date. Sec. 82, as has been sta!ed, came into for.:e on
-
•
April 1, 1964, and the reference in sub-section ( 4) of that sectieo.1 to the _
"commencement of this A•;::t" meant a reference to the coming into force of J
that provision with effect from April 1, 1964.
It may be that the firs.t three
rules or directions con

## Text

_Characters 0–39,824 of 93,432. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39824 for what follows._

83 9
CHETTIAM VEETTIL AMMAD AND ANR.
v.
TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.
May 2, 1979
(P. N. SHINGHAL AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963, Sections 81, 82, 82(4), 84(3) & 84(5)-
Scope of.
The Kerala State Legislature felt the necessity of making cornpreh'ensive
\
~ land reforms in the State.
The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act IV
.of 1961) was accordingly passed and receiv'ed the assent of the President on
January 21, 1961. Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect
from February 15, 1961.
That Act was struck down as unconstitutional by
•
•
,
this Court.
The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants a.nd Kud'ikidappukars Protection
Act, 1962 was then paSBed for the temporary protection of t'enants in those
taluks.
The .K'erala High Court declared it null and void iin its application
to the ryotwari lands of the Malabu area and most of the lands of Travancore
area.
As an interim legis-1ation, the Ker&la Tenants and Kudikidappukars Pro1ection Act 1963 was passed to provide some protection to the tenants. But it
repealed the Keral& Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act,
1962, and suspended the operation of the
Kerala Agrarian
Relations
Act,
1960. After re-examining the requirements in the field of land refonns as a
whole, the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 was published in the Slate Gazette
on Sept. 15, 1963. It covered a wide field in th'e matter of land reforms and,
inter alia, provided for the imposition of a ceiling on 'holdings' of lands, the
surrend'er of excess of lands, grant of compensation thereof, and the assignment
of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order of priority mentioned
in the Bill, collection of purchase price, constitution of Land Tribunals etc,
The Land Reforms Act 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) received the assent of the President on Dec., 31, 1963. It was amended extensively, and in several 1natcrial
particulars by Act, 35 of 1969, Act 25 of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972.
The following three main points of controversy arose in the appeals :
1. Whether lands converted into plantations between April 1, 1964 a.nd
January l, 1970 qualified for exemption under s. 8I(l)(e) of the Act.
2. Whether a certificate of purchas'e issued by the Land Tribunal under
s. 72K of the Act was binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under
-Chapter III of the Act.
3. Whether the validity or invalidity of transfers effected by persons owning
or holding lands exceeding the ceiling limit could be detennined with reference
•
1o the ceiling area in force on the date of the transfer or in accordance with
1he ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969-whether sub-section (3) of 6.
~4 was retrospective in operation.
HELD : Point No. 1. The controversy is whether the restriction
of
sub·
section (4) of section 82 came into force on January ·1, 1970, beca.ure section
12 of the amending Act of 1971 was brought into forc'e on that date, or
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
whether it came ii1to force on April 1, 19641 when section 82 as originally
enacted came into force.
[853H, 854G]
B
c
D
E
F
G
All the three Acts contain provisions about their "commencement".
Subsection (3) of s'ection 1 of the Act provides that : (i) Section 1 of the Act
shall come into force at once, (ii) the other provisions of the A.ct shall con1e
into force on such dates as the Government may appoint, (iii) <liilerent d"te:-.
may be appointed for
different
prov1s1ons
of the
Act,
and
(iv)
any
reference in a'ny such provision to the "commencement of
th:s
Act"
shall
be construed as a reference to the corning into for.::e of that provision.
The
Act was published in the Gazette on January 14, 1964, ;.•.1d. by vir1ue of
section 3 of the Ker&la Interpretation and General Clau3es Act, section 1
came into force on that date. Sec. 82, as has been sta!ed, came into for.:e on
-
•
April 1, 1964, and the reference in sub-section ( 4) of that sectieo.1 to the _
"commencement of this A•;::t" meant a reference to the coming into force of J
that provision with effect from April 1, 1964.
It may be that the firs.t three
rules or directions contained in .sub-section (3) were spent on the
com:~1g
into force of sec. 1 of the Act or its other provisions on th'e dates appointed
for them, but, for obvious reasons, rule (iv) continued to hold the field
inasmuch as it laid down the rule of construction that a1.1y reference to the
commencement of th'e Act s-hall be construed as a reference to the coming
into force of that particular provision.
It was therefore applicableas a
general rule of construction whenever it became necessary to ascertain the
date of commencement of a particular provision of the Act other thaa.
section I. [854G, 855B-F]
Sub-section ( 4) of section 82, as originally incorporated in the Act, came
into force on April 1, 1964. It was amended by section 66 of the Amending
Act of 1969, which came into force on January 1, 1970, but that proved
to be fortuitous and was supplanted by section 12 of the Amending Act o:t
1971 from the sam'e date.
The sub-section as 2.mended by the Amending
Act of 1971 also dealt with the conversion of land into any other class of
land "after the commenlcement of this Act'', but it added the words "or into
a plantation" and provided that such conversion shall not be taken into conslderation for determining the extent of the land to be surrendered.
[855F·H]
On the plain meaning of the proviso to sub-section 3 of section 1, it
'
~ollo~s that wAhen _
1
th
1
e r
1
r
9
o
6
v
4
1s1~tn of sudb-sdection_ 4 of
1
section ~2 w
1
as bro
1
ught _,,...-(
mto iorce on
pn
,
, I s amen e version a so came into orce rom
that date.
[856B, Ej
No particular s'ignificanc'e attaches to the use of the expression "provisons''
or "provision" in section 1 (3) of the Act.
A provis-ion is a distinct rule or
principle of law in a statute which governs the situa.tion covered by it.
So
an incomplete idea, even though stated in the form of a section of a statute,
cannot be said to be a provision for, by its incompl'eteness, it cannot really
be said to provide a whole rule or principle for observance by those concerned.
A provision of law cannot therefore be sa.id to exisit if it is incomplete, for
then it provides nothing. [856G, 857C-D]
•
,
•
•
H
The amended section 82 of the Act is a distinct rule or a clause for it
provides the extent of the ceiling area In the cases mentioned in it, its effect
on the lands owned or held individually by members of a fan1ily or jointly
..
•
•
/
•
c. v. AMMAD v. TALUK LAND BOARD (Shinghal, !.)
84 l
by some or all the memb'ers of the family, the taking into acoount of the
A
shares of the members of. the family or an adult unmarried person, the effect
of conv'ersion of z.ny class of land into any other class of land specified in
the Schedule or into a plantation and th'e extent of land liable to be surrendered, lands covered by a private trust or a private institution a.nd exemption
of lafl:d covered by section 81(6). The section is therefore a "provision" by
any standard a9 it states th'e law relating to the imposition of ceiling on land.
It may well be stated that sub-9ection ( 4) of section 82 is also a provision
B
of the law by itself, for it lays down a distinct rule relating to conversion of
bnd for observance by all concerned. [857D-F, H, 858A]
The view taken by the High Court in Ramunni Nair v. State of Kera!a,
(1976) KLT 632, in regard to the meaning to be attached to the words "the
commencement of this Act" is substantially correct and do'es not call for
interference. [859B]
There is
~10 force in the other argument that a landholder is, in any
event, entitled to~ the benefit of the exemption under section 81 as an1ended
by the Act of 1969 in respect of the "extent of plantation within the ceiling
airea" even though it were ,converted into a plantation during th'e period April
1, 1964 to December 31, 1969.
The argument is untenable because 'while
sub-section ( 1) of section 81 provides that th'e provisions of Chapter III shall
not apply to lands and plantatio119 mentioned in it, that is overridden by, and
is subject to the requiren1ent of, sub-section ( 4) of section 82. [859D-F]
Reference made to Saidu Muhammed v. Bhanukuitan (1967) KLT 947
State of Kera/a & Ors. v. Philomina etc,, [1977] I SCR 213, and State of
Kerala & Ors. v. K. A. Gangadharan, [1977] 1 SCR 960.
Point No. 2.
The question for consideration is whether the certificate of
puixhase
issued by the Land Tribunal under section 72K of the Act is binding on the
Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of th'e Act for the purpose
of taking a decision in regard to the ceiling &ea under sub-section (5) of
section 85.
Sub--section (1) of that section shows that the question for
examination by the Board is not that relating to the 'existence of the tenancy
rights of the person who files the statement under sub-section (2), but that
xelating to the bona (ides of his belief that the land sought to be excluded
by him is liable to be purchased by a cultivation tenant.
The Land Tribunal
and the Taluk Land Board thus operate in their respective fi'elds for the purpose of the Act. [86() B, E-G].
Sub-section (2) of section 72K merely declares that the certificate of purchase shall be conclusive proof of the "assignment" of the right, title and
interest of the landowner and the intermediary (if any) to the tenant in
respect of the holding concerned.
There is nothing in the sub-section to
require that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in those proceedings would
be conclusive proof of any other matter so as to bind the Taluk Land Board
or any authority.
Sub-section (2) of section 72K therefore does not impinge
on the authority of the Taluk Land Board to discharge its own functions under
section 85 (5). [8600-H, 861A-B]
As such the Board is quite free to cause the particulars mentioned in the
statement to. be verified, and to ascertain whether the person filing it owns
or holds any other land, and to determine the "extent" as Well as the "identity"
of the excess land which he is required to surrender. In that sphere of work,
15-330SCI/79
c
D
E
.,
G
H
..
• •
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
the certificate of purchas'e is not required by law to be conclusive proof in
regard to the surplus or any other land held by its holder so as to foreclose
the decision of the Taluk Land Board under sub-section (5) of section 85.
[861B-DJ
B
c
D
Moreover, &!though the certificare of purcha~ is conclusive proof in respect
of the matters stated in section 72K(2), that only means that no contrary
evidence shall be effective to displace it, unless the so called
conclusiv'e
evidence is inaccurate on its face, or fraud can be shown (Halsbury's Laws
of England, fourth edition, vol. 17, page 22 para.graph 28).
"Inaccuracy on
the· fac'e" of the certificate is not as wide in its connotation as an "error
apparent on the face of the record".
It will therefore not be permissible for
the Board to disregard the evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase
merely on the ground that it boo not been is.sued on a proper appreciation
or consideration of the evidenc'e on record, or that the Tribunal's finding
suffers from any procedural error.
What sub-section (2) of section 72K
provides is an irrebutable presumption of Jaw, and it may well be regardeG
as a
ruh.~ of subst&'!'ltive law.
But even so, it thereby does not take away
the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board to make an order under section
85(5) after taking into consideratio•.1 the "conclusive" evidentiary value of
the certificate as far as it goes.
[861E-H, 862A]
The view taken in Kunianujan Thampuran & Ors. v. Taluk Land Board,
(1976) KLT 716 is thus not quite correct.
[862B]
Point No. 3.
Some of the persons who owned or held lands exceeding the ceiling: pres~
cribed by the Act, had voluntarily transferred some of their lai.1ds after the
publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, in the State Gazette rn
September 15, 1963.
Section 84 of the Act therefore provides that, except
E
for the transfers mentioned in the section, the transfers so rnad'e sha.U be
deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act,
and
shall be invalid.
The s'ection has thus been linked with section 82 which
specifics the ceiling area, and has been so amended as to reduce that area
•
considerably.
The question is whether the validity of a voluntary transfer
,.
F
G
is to be determined with reference to the ceiling area in force on the date
of the transfer, or the reduced ceiling area prescribed by the An1endi11g Act
Y
of 1969. As has been observed by this Court in State of Kerala & Ors. v.
~
K. A. Gangadharan, [1977] 1 SCR 960, section 84 has been enacted with a
view to making the provisions of sections 83 and 85 effective.
Section 15
of the Amending Act of 1972 (which ins'erted sub-section (3) in s-ection 84)
.,,
does not state that it has been made with retrospective effect, and sub-section
(3) does not, in terms, state that it shall be deemed to hav'e come into force
from the da.te of the amendment which was made by the Amending Act of
1969.
Even so, it is necessary to examine th'e true effect of the ins-ertion and
to decide whether it is retroactive.
[8620-H, 863A, D, G, H, 864A-BJ
The primary rule of construction is that courts should be guided by the
plain and clear language of the statute, for the legislature i& IDtended to
m·ean what it· has expressed.
It is an equally important rule of interpretation
that a sta-tute is not to be read retrospectively except for necessity.
[864BJ
So construed, it is obvious that although the Act had not even come into
force on September 15, 1963, it invalidafed the transfers m&:ie after that date
in excess of the ceiling area it pre&eribed.
It follows therefore that so long
a<; September 15, 1963 continues to remain the date with reference to which
•
••
•
•
c. v. AMMAD v. TALUX LAND BOARD (Shingha/, l.) .
843
the transfers are to be invalidated, the Variation in the extent of the ceiling
has necessarily to work back to that date.
The fegislature therefore inserted
sub-section (3) of section 84 to clarify that the expression "ceiling. area"
in the earlier sub-sections would mean the ceiling area specified in section.
82(1f as amended by "the Amending Act of 1969, i.e. the reduced ceiling.
[864D-F]
In taking this vieW the Coiirt made a reference to the notes on clauses
to the Amending Bill of 1972 and observed that while it was true that the
intention of the legislature. cannot be ascertained from any statement by way
of a note on the clauS'es of the Bill or, breviate, and the duty of the Court
is t.o find the natural meaning of the words in a statute in the context in
which they are used, it has always been considered
permissible and even
desirabl'e to take note of the history of the st&tute and the circumstances in
which it was passed or the mischief at which it was directed. 'The reason is
that the meaning which ·is 1'o be given to a statute s.fiould be such as
\\ill
carry out its object.
So viewed, it appears that, as has plainly
been Btat'ed
in it, th'! "ceiling area" refCrred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 84
is the reduced ceiling area specified by the
Amending Act of 1969. It is
clearly retros~tive, as if is meant to invalidate
the
transfers made after
September 15, 1963 when th'e Bill of 1963 was published.
[864F,
865G-H,
866A-B, CJ
The Court theri examined some of the appeals separately and recorded it.9
finding thereen. [866F-868 & 869, 879-877];
Whlle examining civil appeal No. 1015 of
1976,
the .Court Cxamincd
the question whether a child in the womb on January 1, 1970 was a member
of the family for the purpose of section 82(1)(c) of the Act.
It referred
to the definition of the expression "'family" in clause (14) of sec. 2 and of the
expression "minor" as defined in clause (36A) anq'. held that two postulates
were necessary for obtaining the benefit of the increase of one standard acre
for each member of the family in excesS of five, namely, that tho member
should be in existence, and it should be possible to ascertain that be had
not attained the age of/ 18 years on the appointed date. It was held that as
bathe these conditions could not be said to exist in the case of a child en
ventre sa tnere, it would not be regarded as a memb!r of the family for purposes
of sec. 82 of the Act. (8680-F].
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1015 OF 1976
.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated
31-5-1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1615/75).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and ,Order dated
3-1-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 2879/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2811 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave· from the Judgment and Order dated
22-10-1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1086/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 574-575 OF 1978
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Orders dated
30-3-1976 and 11-10-76 of the Kera!a High Court in CRP No_ 1640
and Review Petition No. 73176 respectively).
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT.REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
25·11·1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1880/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 143 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
28.9.1976 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 599/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
25·2·1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 4194/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
26-5-77 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1815/76A).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2070 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
18.8.1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 68/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2584 OF 1977
dated
dated
,--
da 17
dated ,
dated
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
~
2-9-1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 332/76-E).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2585 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
12-10-1976 of the. Kerala High Court in CRP No. 829/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2586 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
11.10.1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 726 of 1976).~
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2587 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 20.12.1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 3209/76).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2623 OF 1977
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment a11d Order dated
10-12-1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 2626/75).
'
•
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 290 OF 1978
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
3-1-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1977 of 76-A).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 362 OF 1978
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
29-7-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1553/77-D).
~
I
•C, V. AMMAD V. TALUK LAND BOARD (Shinghal, J.)
845
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 882 OF 1978
~
('Appeal by Special Leave from tbe Judgment and Order dated
29-11-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 4574/78-G).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 227 OF 1978
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
15-3-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 3028/76-E).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 869 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
12-10-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP Nos. 635 and 859 of
1976).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 870 OF 1979
Y
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
\25-7-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 2333/77).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 871 OF 1979
dated
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
27-9-1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 128/76-B).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 872 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
15-10-1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 465176).
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 873-874 OF 1979
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
4-3-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP Nos. 1682 and 1706/760).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 875 OF 1979
(Appeal by Specal Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
2-2-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 383/7.8-A).
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 876-877 OF 1979
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
,17-3-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP Nos. 4977 and 4978 of
~6-A).
.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 878 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
20-3-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 4980 of
B).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 1978
dated
1976-
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
• 20-3-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 21/77-B).
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 881 OF 1979
H
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
26-7-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 2098/78).
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 979) 3 S.C.R.
.A
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 883 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
·
- '
2-8-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 2203/77-G).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 884 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
B
1-9-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1978 of 78-F).
c
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 885 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
17-7-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 146/77-C).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 886 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
16-8-79 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 2351/78A).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 889 OF 1979
dated '
/
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
,--
23.11.1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 28 of 77-C)..
•
D
E
F
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 890 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
3-11-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 5358/76-E).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 894 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
19-12-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 3980/77E).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 895 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
2-12-1977 of the Ke.rala High Court in CRP No. 2542/77B).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 896 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
31-3-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 3264/76-F).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 897 OF 1979
,
{Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order d~
27-5-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1978/76-A).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 898 OF 1979
G
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
12-8-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 2898/77-C).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 899 OF 1979
,
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
3-8-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 4686/76-A).
•
H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
8-9-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 3941/76).
/
~-
c. v. AMMAD v . . TALUK LAND BOARD (Shinghal, 1.)
847
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 901 OF 1979
A
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
28-2-1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1665 of 1976).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 902 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
2-3-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 633/78-E).
B
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
26-7-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 4762/76-F).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1019 OF 1979
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
C
18-10-1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 1117/78-H).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1015/76
For the Appellants: T. R. G.
Warriyar and A. S.
Nambiar
For the Respondents : P. A. Francis and N. Sudhakaran.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1723/77
For the Appellant : K. S.
Ramamurthi, T. R. G.
Warriyar,
S. Balakrishnan, C. S. A. Iyer, M. K. D. Namboodari and C. K.
Bharthan,
1
For the Respondents : M. M. Abdul Khader, Advocate General,
Kerala and K. M K. Nair.
For the Intervener: K. K. Venugopal, Addi. Sol. Genl,
and
K. J. John.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2811 OF.1977
For the Appellant : K. N. Bhat and V. K. Verma,
For the Respondents : Dr. V. A.
Seiyed
Mohammad
K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 574-575/78
and
For the Appellants : G. B. Pai, K. J. John and J. B.
Dadachanji.
For the Respondents : K. T. Harindra Nath and V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 40/77
For the Appellant : M. C. Bhandare, K. J. John, and J. B. Dadachanji.
For the Respondents: P. A. Francis and N. Sudhakaran.
D
E
F
G
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 143/77
H
For the Appellants : T. C. Raghavan and P. K. Pillai.
For Respondents 1-2 : K. M. K. Nair.
A
•
c
D
E
. ·~
F
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979) 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1309/77
For the Appellant : T. C. Raghavan, and N. Sudhakaran,
For the Respondents: K. M. K. Nair.
For the Intervener : Mathai M. Paikeday and N. Sudhakaran.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1863/77
For the Appellant : T. R. G. Warriyar and A. S. Nambiar,
For the Respondents : K. R. Nambiar and V. J. Francis,
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2070/77
Far the Appellant : T. C. Raghavan, N. Sudhakaran and P. K.
Pillai,
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair,
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2584/77
For the Appellants : T. C. Raghavan, N. Sudhakaran and P. K.
Pillai,
For Respondents l-3 : P. A. Francis and K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2585/77
For the Appellant: M. C. Bhandare, Mrs. S. Bhandare, P. Santhalingam, A. N. Karhanis and Miss M. Poduval.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair,
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2586/77
For the Appellant : P. K. Pillai.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2587 /77
For the Appellant : K. T. Harindra Nath and N. Sudhakarim.
For the Repondents : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2623/77
For the Appellant : T. R. G. Warriyar and A. S. Nambiar .
For the Respondents: G. Govindan Nair and K. R. Nambiar.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 290/78
For the Appellants : Anant Krishnan, S. Balakrishnan and M. K.
D. Namboodri.
For the Respondents l-3 : P. Govindan Nair and K.M.K. Nair.
G
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 362/78
For the Appellants: K. T. Harindernath and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 882/78
H
For the Appellants : T. C. Raghavan, S. Balakrishnan, C. K.
Bharathan, CSA Iyer and M. K. D. Namboodri.
For the Respondents : P. Govindan Nair and K. R. Nambiar:
•
•
•
c. v. AMMAD v. TALUK LAND BOARD (Shinghal, /.)
849
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 227 /78
For the Appellants : Dr. V. A. Syed Mohd and K. R. Nambiar.
For 'Ifie Respondent- : F. S. Nariman, K. Joseph and K. J. John.
For the Intervener (Rubber Board) : K. K. Venugopal, Addi. Sol.
Genl. and K. J. John.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 869/79
For the Appellants: N. Sudhakaran.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 870/79
For the Appellant : N. Sudhakaran.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 871/79
For the Appellant : A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondent : K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 872/79
For the Appellant : P. K. Pillai.
For the Responderlt,s : K. R. Nambiar.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 873-1!74/79
For the Appellant : N. Sudhakaran.
For the Respondents 1-3 : V. J. Francis.
For the Respondents 4-5 : A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondent No. 6 : S. B. Saharya.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 875/79
For the Appellants : A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondents : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 876/79
For the Appellants : T. R. G. Warriyar and A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondents 1-3 : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 877 /79
For. the Appellant: A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondents 1-3 : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 878/79
For the Appellants : A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondents 1-3 : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 879/78
For the Appellants : A. S. Nambiar .
For the Respondents 1-2 : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 881/79
F11r the Appellant : Saroja Goplakrishnan.
For the Respondents 1-3 : V. J. Francis.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPEAL l'{O. 883/79
For the Appellants : S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 885/79
For the Appellants: A. S. Nambiar.
B
For the Respondents 1-3 : V. J. Francis.
c
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 884/79
For the Appellant : P. K. Pillai, Sr.
for the Respondents: Mr. K. R. Nambiar.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 886/79
For the Appellant : A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondents : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 889/79
For the Appellants : S. Balakrisbnan and M. K. D. Namboodri.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair.
D
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 890/79
E
F
G
H
For the Appellants : A. S. Nambiar,
For the Respondents: V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 894/79
For the Appellant : N. Sudhakaran.
For the Respondents: K. R. Nambiar.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 895/79
For the Appellants : M. C. Bhandare, S. Bhandare, Miss M. Poduval and J. Santhalingam.
For the Respondents l-3 : K. R. Nambiar.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 896/79
For the Appellant : N. Sudbakaran.
For the Respondents: V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 897 /79
For the Appellants: P. K. Pillai.
For the Respondents : V. J. Francis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 898/79
For the Appellants: A. S. Nambiar.
For the Respondents: K. R. Nambiar.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 899/79
For the Appellants: S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri.
For the Respondents : K. R.. Nambiar.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 900179
For the Appellant : S. Balakrishnan anu M. K. D. Namboo<lri.
For the Respondents : 1-3 : K. R. Nambiar.
c. v. AMMAD v. TALUK LAND BOARD (Shinghal, !.)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 901/79
For the Appellant : P. K. Pillai.
For the Respondents : K. M. K. Nair.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 902/79
851
For the Appellant : S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri.
A
For the Respondents: K. R. Nambiar.
:B
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 903/79
For the Appellant : S. B. Saharya.
For the Respondents : V. J. Fmacis.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1019/79
For the Appellant : T. T. Kunhikannan.
For the Respondents: V. J. Francis.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J. The learned counsel for the appellants have categorically stated at the Bar that no question relating to the validity of
the Kerala L'and Reforms Act,
1963
(Act 1 of 1964), hereafter
referred to as the Act, or any of its provisions, arises in these appeals
by special leave.
We have heard them together virtually as companion
appeals at the instance of learned counsel for they arise out of several
judgments of the High Cburt of Kerala in matters relating to the implementation of the provisions for the restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area and the disposal of excess
land.
These are the subject matter of Chapter III of the Act, as
amended from time to time. It is not necessary to refer to the dates
of all judgments of the High Court of Kerala, or to all the points of
controversy there, as learned counsel have been able to channelise
their arguments into three main points of controversy, which have
been argued at length. It is true t'hat all these points do not arise in
all the cases before us, and some learned counsel have raised additional arguments in the peculiar facts and circumstances of their cases.
lt will therefore be convenient and proper to deal with the three main
point's first, and to take up the additional point~ for consideration with
reference to the appeals in which they have been raised for our consideration. · This, it is agreed, will be a proper and a fair course to
adopt for the disposal of these appeals. It is also agreed by learned
counsel that the other appeals in which such
additional points
have not been raised shall stand decided according to our decision on
the three main points.
c
E
F
G
In order to understand the controversy in its proper perspective,
ff
it may be mentioned that, as in the other States in the country, the
Kerala State legislature felt the necessity of making "comprehensive"
A
B
c
D.
E
ff
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979) 3 S.C.R.
land refonns in the State.
The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960
(Act 4 of 1961) was accordingly passed, and received the assent of the
President on January 21, 1961. Some of its provisions were brought
into force with effect from February 15,
1961. This Court struck
down that Act: as unconstitutional in its application to the ryotwari
lands of Hosdurg and Kasaragod taluka.
The Kerala Ryotwari
Tenants and Kudikidappulmrs Protection Act, 1962, was then passed
for the temporary protection of tenants in those taluks.
The State
High Court declared it null and void in its application to the ryotwari
lands of the Malabar area and most of the fands of Travancore area.
So the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1963,
was passed to provide some protection to tenants.
It was an interim
legislation.
Even so it repealed the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and
Kudilddappukars Protection Act, 1962, and suspended the operation
cf the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960.
After re-examining the requirements in the field of land reforms as
a whole, the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, was published in State
Gazette on September 15, 1963. It covered a wide field in the matter
of land refonns and, inter alia, provided for the imposition of a ceiling
on "holding" of lands, the surrender of extess lands grant of compensation therefor, and the assignment of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order .of priority mentioned in the Bill, collection of purchase price, constitution of Land Tribunals and Land Baard etc. The
Bill was enacted as the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of
1964), and received the assent of the President on December 31, 1963.
It was amended extensively, and in several material particulars, by Act
35 of 1969, and then by Act 25 of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972. There
were other amendments also, but it is agreed that they do not bear .on
the controversy before us.
The three main points of controversy in these appeals have been
formulated by learned counsel for the 'appellants as follows :-
1. Whether fands converted into plantations between April I,
1964 and January 1, 1970 qualify for exemption under section 81 (l)(e) of the Act
2. Whether a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under section 72K of the Act is binding on the Taluk
Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act.
3. Whether the validity or invalidity of transfers effected by
persons owning or holding lands exceeding the ceiling limit
should be determined with reference to the ceiling area in
force on the date of the transfer or in accordance with the
ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969-whethcr subsection ( 3) of section 84 is retrospective in operation.
..
c. v. AMMAD v. TALUK LAND BOARD (Shinghal, !.)
853
We shall examine the three points one by one but before doing so it
A
will be advantageous to refer briefly to the substantive provisions of
the Act which bear on the appeals before us.
It will be recalled 'that the Act came into existence when the other
attempts to make legislative provision for land reforms did not work
out satisfactorily for one reuson or the other.
The Act was therefore
enacted by way of "a comprehensive legislation" to bring about land
reforms in the Kerala State. While Chapter I of the Act contains provisions relating, inter alia, to its commencement and defines some of
the important terms and e){pressions, Chapter II contains many provisions for the benefit of tenants and "deemed tenants", including restoration of lands and fixity of their tenure, purchase of landlords'
rights by cultivating tenants and rent payable by certain categories of
tenants etc.
The provisions of the Chapter do not apply to the leases,
tenancies and transferred lands and transactions mentioned in section
3.
We are however primarily concerned with Chapter III under the
general rubric "Restrictions on ownership and possession of land in
excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands." Section 81 deals
with "exemptions", including "plantations". Section 82 prescribes the
"ceiling area'', section 83 prohibits the owning or holding or posses•ing
under a mortgage lands in excess of the ceiling area. Section 84 declares what voluntary transfers shall be deemed to be invalid. Subsection (3) of the section has attracted much controversy and we shall
deal with it in due course. Section 85 makes it obligatory to surrender
the excess land, and section 86 vests such excess lands in the State
Government free from all encumbrances. Section 87 makes provision
for the surrender of excess land obtained by gift, purchase or mortgage,
lease, surrender or any other transfer inter vivas or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise if the total extent of land thereby exceeds the
ceiling area.
These are the main provisions which bear on the three
points which have been raised for our consideration.
Point No. 1
The question is whether lands converted into plantation between
April 1, 1964 and January 1, 1970 are exempt from the operation of
B
c
D
E
r
the provisions of Chapier III of the Act in regard to the restriction on
G
ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by it. It will be recalled that while section 82 prescribes the
ceiling area of the land, section 81 states what shall be exempted from
its operation. Clause ( e) of sub-section (1) of that
section
thus
specifically provides that the provisions of Chapter III sh'all not be
applicable to "plantations".
That has been so from the inception of
B
the Act, and the question therefore is whether those who felt tempted
by tlte exemption in favour of plantations and converted their lands
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
into plantations after the coinmencement of the Act, would get the
benefit of the exemption and, if so, from which date would the conversion be recognised ?
This has been dealt with in sub-section ( 4) of section 82 of the
Act which prescribes the ceiling. It is not in dispute before us that
section came into force on April 1, 1964.. The sub-section as origiB
nally enacted in Act I of 1964 therefore came into force on that date.
c
D
E
G
H
It read as follows :-
" 82 ( 4) Where, after the commencement of this Act, any
class of land specified in Schedule I1 has been converted into
any other c1'ass of land specified therein, the extent of land
that may be owned or held by a family or adult unmarried
person owning or holding such land at the time of the conversion shall be determined without taking into account such
conversion."
Sec,tion 82 was however substantially amended by section 66 of the
Amending Act of 1969 which, inter alia, reduced the ceiling area of
the land and amended the wordings of sub-section ( 4) also.
That
section came into force on January 1, 1970. It is not necessary to
refer to it as the legislature amended sub-section ( 4) ot section 82
once again, by section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971, which, by
virtue of section 1 of that Act, also =e into force on January 1,
1970 and thereby supplanted, from the very inception, the amendment
which had been bronght about by the Amending Act of 1969.
The
amended sub-section, which is the subject matter of the point unde.r
consideration, reads as follows,-
"82 ( 4) Where, after the commencement of this Act, any
class of land specified in Section 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 surrendered by a
person owning or holding such land shall be determined
without taking into consideration such conversion.''
The controversy therefore is whether the restriction of sub-section
( 4) of section 82 came into force from January 1, 1970 because section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 was brought into force on that
date, or whether it came into force on April 1, 1964, when section 82
as originally enacted by the Act came into force. As it happens, all
the three Acts contain provisions about their "commencement" and it
is these which have to be interpre.ted for the purpose of resolving the
dispute.
Sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act provides as follow~,
"1 (3). The provisions of this Act, except this section
which shall come into force at once, shall come into force
•
•
c. v. AMMAD v.