# HOPE PLANTATIONS LTD v. T ALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1998] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 514
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-11-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 540 of 1986
- **Bench:** K.T. Thomas, D.P. Wadhwa, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hope-plantations-ltd-v-t-aluk-land-board-peermade-and-anr-16351
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Tenancy and Land Laws :
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963-Section 85(9) and (9-A), (5) and (2),
Form 1, Sections 2(44) and (3), 82, 81(3) and 83-Power of Taluk Land
Board under Section 85(9-A) and 85(9) to review its decision-Appel/ant,
owner of estate mainly of tea plantation-Sought exemption of specific portions
of land under the heads (1) Tea Plantation, (2) Roads and Buildings, OJ Fuel
D Area, and (4) Other Agricultural Land lnterspersed-Taluk Land Board
disallowing claims under the heads 'fuel area" and "rested areas" as well
as under "other agricultural land interspersed"-High Court, in revision,
restoring the appellant's claim under heads (1) and (3) and remanding the
matter on heads (2) and (4)-0n appeal by the State, held: in respect of "fuel
area" and "rested area" order of the Taluk Land Board deserves to be
E restored-Jn the remand proceedings, Taluk Land Board took up the question
of "other agricultural land interspersed"-Appellant raising the claim for
exemption of fuel area on the ground that within that area there wa.i: a pre
1964 cardamom plantation-Appellant also reiterating its claim to exemption
of the rested tea area on the ground of being within the tea plantation areaF By a majority, Taluk Land Board allowing both the claims of the appellant
and also the claims under the head 'other agricultural land interspersed'-
High Court, in revision, disallowed the claims of 'fuel area' and cardamom
plantation' and remanded the third claim of "other agricultural land
interspersed"-During Pendency of the appeal before this Court, Cardamom
Board inspected the spot and confirmed the appellant's claim of cardamom
G plantation existing prior to 1964 within the specified area-In absence of
inclusion of such claim in the statement/return filed by the appellant in Form
1 and in view of the dispute regarding "fuel area" and "rested tea area"
having been determined by this Court-Held, there was no scope for any
review by Taluk Land BoaFd under Section 85(9) or 85-A to hold that in the
H fuel area there was cardamom plantation-Moreover, notwithstanding after
514
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUKLANDBOARD, PEERMADE
515
remand, Taluk Land Board was also vested with the power to determine the A
"area of other agricultural land interspersed" under Section 2(44) (c), the
Board could not hold that the area under that head exceeded as claimed by
the appellant-Power of review was also subject to principles of res judicata
and estoppel-Principles of res judicata and estoppel apply even to proceedings
before the administrative authority-However, on the question of fuel area in B
a subsequent decision a larger Bench of this Court had taken a different view
and since the case that rested tea area was part of tea plantation had not been
properly projected before this Court, appellant was allowed to approach the
State Government to seek exemption under Section 81(3)-Res JudicataConstructive Res Judicata-Applicability-Estoppel-Administrative law-Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 and Order 47 Rule 1 Explanation-Evidence C
Act, 1872, Section 115-Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, Rule 6Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 142-Relief
Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
Section I I-Res Judicata-Basis and scope of-Comparison with D
estoppel-"Cause of action estoppe/" and "issue estoppe/"-DistinctionEvidence Act, 1872, Section 115.
Appellant had purchased an estate mainly of tea plantation from South
India Tea, a respondent in an earlier appeal before this Court (CA 227178) E
on the question of exclusion of "fuel area" from the plantation which was
otherwise exempt from the limitation of"ceiling area" under the provisions
of Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Appellant filed return before the Land Revenue Board in relation to
tea plantation held by it Total area of the land held by appellant was 4251.19 F
acres, out of which 267.16 acres were sought to be surrendered. Appellant
claimed exemption under four heads, viz, (i) Tea Plantation, ii) Roads and
Bui

## Text

_Characters 0–39,996 of 71,637. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39996 for what follows._

•
A
B
c
HOPE PLANTATIONS LTD.
v.
T ALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE AND ANR .
NOVEMBER 3, 1998
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.]
Tenancy and Land Laws :
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963-Section 85(9) and (9-A), (5) and (2),
Form 1, Sections 2(44) and (3), 82, 81(3) and 83-Power of Taluk Land
Board under Section 85(9-A) and 85(9) to review its decision-Appel/ant,
owner of estate mainly of tea plantation-Sought exemption of specific portions
of land under the heads (1) Tea Plantation, (2) Roads and Buildings, OJ Fuel
D Area, and (4) Other Agricultural Land lnterspersed-Taluk Land Board
disallowing claims under the heads 'fuel area" and "rested areas" as well
as under "other agricultural land interspersed"-High Court, in revision,
restoring the appellant's claim under heads (1) and (3) and remanding the
matter on heads (2) and (4)-0n appeal by the State, held: in respect of "fuel
area" and "rested area" order of the Taluk Land Board deserves to be
E restored-Jn the remand proceedings, Taluk Land Board took up the question
of "other agricultural land interspersed"-Appellant raising the claim for
exemption of fuel area on the ground that within that area there wa.i: a pre
1964 cardamom plantation-Appellant also reiterating its claim to exemption
of the rested tea area on the ground of being within the tea plantation areaF By a majority, Taluk Land Board allowing both the claims of the appellant
and also the claims under the head 'other agricultural land interspersed'-
High Court, in revision, disallowed the claims of 'fuel area' and cardamom
plantation' and remanded the third claim of "other agricultural land
interspersed"-During Pendency of the appeal before this Court, Cardamom
Board inspected the spot and confirmed the appellant's claim of cardamom
G plantation existing prior to 1964 within the specified area-In absence of
inclusion of such claim in the statement/return filed by the appellant in Form
1 and in view of the dispute regarding "fuel area" and "rested tea area"
having been determined by this Court-Held, there was no scope for any
review by Taluk Land BoaFd under Section 85(9) or 85-A to hold that in the
H fuel area there was cardamom plantation-Moreover, notwithstanding after
514
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUKLANDBOARD, PEERMADE
515
remand, Taluk Land Board was also vested with the power to determine the A
"area of other agricultural land interspersed" under Section 2(44) (c), the
Board could not hold that the area under that head exceeded as claimed by
the appellant-Power of review was also subject to principles of res judicata
and estoppel-Principles of res judicata and estoppel apply even to proceedings
before the administrative authority-However, on the question of fuel area in B
a subsequent decision a larger Bench of this Court had taken a different view
and since the case that rested tea area was part of tea plantation had not been
properly projected before this Court, appellant was allowed to approach the
State Government to seek exemption under Section 81(3)-Res JudicataConstructive Res Judicata-Applicability-Estoppel-Administrative law-Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 and Order 47 Rule 1 Explanation-Evidence C
Act, 1872, Section 115-Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, Rule 6Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 142-Relief
Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
Section I I-Res Judicata-Basis and scope of-Comparison with D
estoppel-"Cause of action estoppe/" and "issue estoppe/"-DistinctionEvidence Act, 1872, Section 115.
Appellant had purchased an estate mainly of tea plantation from South
India Tea, a respondent in an earlier appeal before this Court (CA 227178) E
on the question of exclusion of "fuel area" from the plantation which was
otherwise exempt from the limitation of"ceiling area" under the provisions
of Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Appellant filed return before the Land Revenue Board in relation to
tea plantation held by it Total area of the land held by appellant was 4251.19 F
acres, out of which 267.16 acres were sought to be surrendered. Appellant
claimed exemption under four heads, viz, (i) Tea Plantation, ii) Roads and
Buildings; iii) Area for fuel trees; and iv) Other Agricultural Land
Interspersed. Taluk Land Board disallowed substantial claims of the
appellant for exemption as 'fuel area' and rested tea area'. The appellant G
filed revision before the High Court which restored the claims made by the
appellant under the heads 'fuel areas' and 'rested tea area' and in respect
of the heads 'roads and buildings' and 'other agricultural land interspersed'
remanded the matter to Taluk Land Board for re-determination of the
ceiling area. Taluk Land Board as well as the State filed an appeal before
this Court against the order of the High Court, and appeal was allowed by H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A this Court restoring the orders of the Taluk Land Board.
In the proceedings pursuant to remand by the High Court, Taluk Land
Board found that out of924.01 acres claimed by the appellants fuel clearing
area for firewood for tea manufacture, an area of 421.88 acres contained
cardamom plantation which had been planted prior to 1964. Taluk Land
B Board was of the view that the remaining 302.13 acres out of924.0l acres
should also be exempted as it was satisfied that the area earlier claimed was
interspersed with cardamom plantation. Since it was first claimed as fuel
clearing area the interspersed area could not be taken and exempted whole
of 924.01 acres holding that it could not be treated as surplus land. On the
C question of claim of the appellant regarding 136.17 acres as 'rested tea area',
reference was made to the observation of this Court where it was held that
if the plucking was carried on in the said land, it would be included wi1thin
the plantation. Out of fuel clearing area of 924.01 acres and rested tea 21rea
of 136.17 acres the decision ofTaluk Land Board was by majority with the
Chairman dissenting on the ground that the stand of appellant regarding
D 'rested tea area' and 'fuel area' stood concluded by the decision of this
Court. On the other two heads, namely, the area of 202.55 acres under' roads
and buildings' and other area of 263.63 acres as 'agricultural land
interspersed' with other plantation crops as claimed by the appellant, the
decision of the Taluk Land Board was unanimous. High Court, in the
E revision filed by State, agreed with Taluk Land Board that it could nott go
into the question of 'fuel area' and 'rested tea area' after the decision of
this Court. Appellant was held entitled to 200 acres of land only as fuel area.
High Court upheld the claim of apflellant for 202.55 acres of land under
building sites and roads. As regards 263.80 acres of land claimed by the
appellant as interspersed with cardamom, High Court, however, remanded
F the matter to Taluk Land Board to decide afresh. High Court also upheld
the contention of the State that in the return earlier filed by the appellant it
had not claimed any land under cardamom plantation and as such exempt
from visiting and that the appellant was not entitled to get exemption on
any ground other than that shown in the statement. Hence this appeal.
G
It was contended by the appellant that statement/return which was
filed showed as to how exemption was being claimed for the lands under
Section 81 of the Act; at the time when the statement was filed, positio~1 of
law in relation to interpretation of material provision in the Act was 1~ot
very clear. There was an order of the State Land Board under Kanan Devan
H Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, wherein ratio of fuel area worked out to
-
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUKLAND BOARV, PEERMADE
517
2.3 and on that basis the chunk of land was claimed by the appellant as fuel A
area and sought to justify the entire extent of 924 acres claimed to be bona
fide used as fuel areas; under section 2(44) of the Act, agricultural lands
interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation
crops, not exceeding such extent as determined by the Land Board as
necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation B
was treated as plantation of exemption from the ceiling area and at the
material time when Taluk Land Board made order, it was not competent
to examine the claim regarding land interspersed with plantation crops; the
proposition oflaw laid down that fuel wood supplied to the employees could
not be said to be for ancillary purpose, was no longer a good law; Taluk
Land Board, while it was seized of the matter on remand could reopen the C
whole case when it was pleaded before it in an affidavit that 421.88 acres of
land contained cardamom plantation coming within the definition of
'plantation' by virtue of Section 81(1)(e) of the Act; principle ofresjudicata
cannot be made applicable in these proceedings as it is a case of
expropriatory law; there could also be no plea of estoppel; the report of D
Cardamom Board accepted the majority view ofTaluk Land Board as well
as the stand of the appellant that cardamom plantation existed prior to 1964,
and therefore, the cardamom area was exempted from the provision of the
Act, Taluk Board Land had power under Section 85(9A) of the Act to review
its own decision and this could be done on the ground that there was a failure
on the part of the appellant to produce relevant data regarding fuel area, E
rested tea and cardamom plantation.
It was contended by the respondent that after the decision of this Court
in CA 227n8, the jurisdiction ofTaluk Land Board was barred on two items
namely, fuel area and rested tea area, in the statement filed in Form I, it
was nowhere mentioned that there was any cardamom plantation;
cardamom plantation had to come within the meaning of the word
'plantation' and it was not required to refer to the exclusive definition of
the Act, Taluk Land Board on remand could not examine the appellant over
and above 263.83 acres as exempt on account of other agricultural lands
interspersed.
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court
F
G
HELD : I.I. Form I under which statement/return is to be filed
requires complete details of the plantation as meant in Section 2(44) of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is to be accompanied with various annexures. H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A The appellant never claimed exemption on the ground of a cardamom
plantation existing prior to 1964. It never asked for amendment of the
return/statement at any stage of the proceedings. It sought exemption on
the ground of the land under the heading "fuel area". Once the matter had
been determined by this Court in appeal, there was no scope for any review
B by the Taluk Land Board to hold that there was a cardamom plantation
existing prior to 1964 in that very area. The respondent has rightly
submitted that there was no foundation for review of that part of the land
falling under the "fuel area" which was, in fact, cardamom plantation. There
was no scope for invoking the provisions of Section 85(9) or 85(9-A) of the
Act.
c
Chettian Veetil Ammadv. Ta/ukLand Board, [1980] 1SCC499, referred
to.
Devi/al Modi, Proprietor MIS Daluram Pannalal Modi v. Sales Tax
Officer, [1965] 1 SCR 686; Forward Construction Co and Ors. v. Prabhat
D Manda/ (Regd.) Andheri and Ors., [1986) 1 SCC 100 and Y.B. Patil and Ors.,
v. Y.L. Patil, AIR (1977) SC 392, relied on.
Daryao v. State of U.P., [1962) 1 SCR 574; Anant Bhikkappa Patil v.
Shankar Ramchandra Patil, AIR (1943) PC 196 and Malankara Rubber and
Produce Co. v. State of Kera/a, [1973) 1 SCR 399, referred to.
E
Isabella Johnshon v. MA. Susai, AIR (1991) SC 993; Sunderabai v.
Devaji Shankar Deshpande, AIR (1954) SC 82; Chathunny v. Taluk Land
Board, (1981) KLT 74 and Thampi Gounderv. State of Kera/a, (1994) 1 KLT
89, distinguished.
1.2. The High Court had set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board
F allowing exemption of 100 acres when the appellant had claimed 268.83
acres as agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the area
cultivated by the appellant. The extent of this area was to be determined by
the Land Board as the Taluk Land Board at the relevant time had no
jurisdiction to so determine. The appellant had specifically claimed 263.83
G acres of such land under the head "other agricultural land interspersed".
After the remand, the Taluk Land Board was also vested with power w.e.f.
7-7-1979 to determine the extent of land under Section 2(44)(c) oHhe Act.
That would not, however, mean that the Taluk Land Board could now
determine that area under this head. To the extent that the Taluk Land
Board by its order dated 26-7-1980 upheld the claim of the appellant to
H 263.83 acres as "agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUKLANDBOARD, PEERMADE
519
area cultivated with plantation crops" It cannot be faulted. (536-D-E)
A
2.1. The principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public
policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of
law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential
particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial
determination from litigating the same question over again even though the B
determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings
have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped
from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action
nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier
litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and "issue C
estoppel". These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue
has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit
advance arguments or adduce further evidence to show that the issue was
wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if
available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to D
an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit
in which the issue had been determined. Section 11 CPC contains provision
of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res
judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable
in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public
policy and justice. [536-H; 537-A-D)
E
Gopal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC 905, relied on.
Chettian Veetil Anand v. Taluk Land Board, (1980) 1 SCC 499 and
Pioneer Rubber Plantationv. State of Kera/a, [1992) 4SCC175, referred to.
Arnoldv. National Westminster Bank Pie. (1991) 2 AC 93, referred to. F
2.2. The plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy
in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, different if an issue which
had been decided in an earlier litigation again arises for determination
between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where G
there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by
the determination made earlier ifin the meanwhile, law has changed or has
been interpreted differently by a higher forum. But that situation does not
exist in the present case. Principles of constructive res judicata apply with
full force. It is the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. The
Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC postulates that the decision on a H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision ofa superior court in any
other case, shall not be a ground for review of such judgment". [540-G-H)
3.1. Since the appellant never claimed exemption outside the ceiling
area on the ground of cardamom plantation, the question was never gone
B into in the earlier proceedings of this Court. This point, therefore, could
not be agitated before the Taluk Land Board dealing with the matter on
remand as finality is attached to the area under the fuel area and rested tea
area for which exemption was not fully granted. It is, therefore, unnecessary
to go into the question if a cardamom plantation existed at the relevant time.
c
(541-B-C)
3.2. However, it appears proper that the appellant be given an
opportunity to approach the State Government to seek exemption under
the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act. This is particularly so as a ThreeJudge Bench of the Court has held that supply offuel wood to employees is
D for the purpose connected with the plantation. Also, that the plea that the
rested tea area is a part of the tea plantation was not properly projected
before this Court. [541-D-E)
E
F
G
Pioneer Rubber Plantation v. State of Kera/a, (1992) 4 SCC 175, referred
to.
Tea Encyclopedia of the Indian Tea Association, Scientific Department;
E.C. Elliot and F.J. Whitehead: Tewa Plantation in Ceylon; Claude Bald: Indian
Tea., referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 540 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.84 of the Kerala High Court
in C.R.P. No. 2034 of 1981.
Harish N. Salve, Joy Joseph, P.H. Parekh, Sanjay Bhartari and E.R.
Kumar for the Appellant.
P. Krishnamoorthy and K.M.K. Nair for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.P. WADHWA, J. This is tile second round of litigation. Earlier, it
was the Taluk Land Board and the State of Kerala which had come to this
H Court in appeal [CA No. 227178 decided in batch of appeals in Chettain
..
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUKLANDBOARD, PEERMADE [D.P. WADHWA, J.]521
Veetil Ammad and Anr. v. Ta/uk Land Board and Ors., [1980] 1 SCC 499 on A
the question of exclusion of 'fuel area' and 'rested area' from the plantation
which is otherwise exempt from the limitation of "ceiling area" under the
provisions of the Kerala Land reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). Present
appellant had purchased the estate mainly of tea plantation from South India
Tea Estate Company Ltd. which was the respondent in the earlier appeal in B
this Court. (CA 227178).
The Act came into force on April l, 1964. The Kerala Land Reforms
(ceiling) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') have been framed under the Act,
which prescribed the Form in which the return/statement is required to be
filed by a person having land in excess of the "ceiling area" fixed under the C
Act or claiming exemption of any land as not falling within the ceiling area
at all.
Predecessor-in-title of the appellant (South India Tea Estate Company
Ltd.) filed return on March 28, 1970 before the Land Board in relation to tea
plantation held by it. (Hereinafter when we refer to the appellant it will mean D
and include its predecessor-in-title as well.) Total area of the land held by the
appellant is 4251.19 acres. Out of this an area of 267 .16 acres was sought to
be surrendered. From the area held by the appellant it claimed exemption
under four heads, namely, (1) Tea Plantation (2) Roads & Building; (3) Area
for Fuel Trees; and ( 4) Other agricultural lands interspersed. By order dated
June 25, 1976 Taluk Land Board disallowed substantial claims of the appellant E
for exemption as 'fuel areas' and 'rested tea area'. Matter was taken up by
the appellant to the Kerala High Court in revision which by order dated
March 15, 1977 restored the claims made by the appellant under those two
heads and under the heads 'Roads and Buildings' and 'Other Agricultural
Land interspersed' and remanded the case to the Taluk Land Board for reF
determination of the ceiling area. The Taluk Land Board and the State of
Kerala which felt aggrieved appealed to this Court regarding the claims of
exemption under the heads 'fuel area' and 'rested tea area'. This Court by
judgment dated May 2, 1979 allowed the appeal and restored the orders of
the Taluk Land Board. We will have occasion to refer to this judgment in
detail at a subsequent stage of this judgment. No final orders, however, could G
be passed by the Taluk Land Board under the Act as it remained seized of
the matter under the two heads on which High Court had remanded the
matter.
Analysis of the orders of the Taluk land Board and of the High Court
are best reflected as under:
H
A
B
c
D
E
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
Head of Exemption Exemption claiExemptions alExemptions alof Land
med by appellant
lowed by Taluk lowed by High
(In acres)
Land Board by Court by order
Order dt. 25.6.76 dt. 15.3.77 (In
(In acres)
acres)
Tea Plantation
2593.64
2457.47
(including rested (136.17 disallow2593.64
area 136.17)
ed on the ground
being rested tea)
Roads & Buildings
202.55
188.00
Remanded
Area under Fuel 924.01
200.00
Trees
(ancillary
to
924,01
plantation i.e. fuel
for tea manufacture, roads,
buildings, factory
etc. for working)
Other agricultural 263.83
100.00
Remanded
lands interspersed
On remand Taluk Land Board again took up the matter after judgment
of this Court dated May 2, 1979 in Chettian Veetil, Ammad and Anr. v. Taluk
Land Board and Ors., [1980] 1 SCC 499. In the proceedings pursuant to the
remand the Taluk Land Board considered the question of interspersed
F agricultural land as the appellant had now pitched its claim on that basis as
well. Equally the appellant claimed that there were cardamom plantation
within the fuel area which existed and which dated back prior to April l,
1964 and which would also be exempt. It also claimed that the rested tea area
would, in fact, fall within tea plantation. Taluk Land Board by order dated
G July 26, 1980 decided the matter in favour of the appellant. Chairman of the
Taluk Land Board, however, dissented as· according to him stand of the
appellant regarding 'rested tea area' and 'fuel area' stood concluded by the
decision of the Supreme Court aforesaid. Aggrieved, now the State of Kerala
challenged the order in the Kerala High Court in revision. By order dated
November 6, 1984 High Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board
H as regards the 'fuel area' and 'rested area'. It negatived the plea of the
..
[
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE [D.P. WADHWA, J.]523
appellant that there was any plantation of cardamom within the fuel area A
existing earlier to April I, 1964. High Court also set aside the finding of the
Taluk Land Board as regards the claim of exemption for the lands interspersed
within the boundaries of the area of plantation with plantation crops and
directed the Taluk Land Board to re-determine the question afresh if it fulfilled
the requirement of Section 2( 44) of the Act and also keeping in view the
observations made in the judgment. High Court, however, did not interfere B
with the decision of the Taluk Land Board as regards "lands necessary for
road, buildings, factory, store, etc." Now the break-up would be as under:-
Head ofExemption Exemption claiExemptions alExemptions alof Land
med by appellant
lowed by Taluk lowed by High
(In acres)
Land Board by Court by order c
Order dt. 26.7.80 dt. 6.11.84 (In
(In acres)
acres)
Tea Plantation
2593.64
2593.64
2457.47
(Including rested
(136.17
dis- D
area 136.17
allowed claim as
rested)
Roads & Buildings 202.55
202.55
202.55
Area under Fuel 924.01
20000
200.00
E
Trees
(ancillary
to (fuel trees)
(claim of cardaplantation i.e. fuel 421.88 (cardamom plantation
for tea manumom plantation and
interfacture,
roads, also claimed as spersed
land
buildings, factory interspersed land disallowed)
F
etc. for working)
under cardamom)
302.13 (interspersed land)
Other agricultural 263.83
263.83
Remanded
lands interspersed
G
The appeal filed by the State against earlier order dated March 15,
1977 of the High Court came to be decided on May 2, 1979 along with many
other appeals from the various judgments of the Kerala High Court and is
reported as Chettian Veetil Ammad and Anr. v. Taluk Land Board and Ors., H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A [1980) l SCC 499. This court was considering a group of appeals arising
from various judgments of the Kerala High Court relating to the
implementation of provisions for the restriction of ownership and possession
of land in excess of ceiling area and the disposal of excess land under the
provisions of the Act. This Court noted that there were three points of
B controversy and gave its decision. However, none of those points were
concerned in the appeal filed by the Taluk Land Board (CA 227178). After
giving answer to the question this Court examined individual appeals and
dealing with the appeal in the case of the appellant, it held as under :
c
D
E
F
"The controversy before us relates to exclusion of "fuel area" and
"rested area". The Company has claimed that it has planted red gum
as fuel in 924.0 l acres as it was required for the "manufacture of
tea". The Taluk Board found it to be an exorbitant claim and reduced
it to 200 acres, but the High Court has restored the entire claim. The
General Manager of the Company has stated that firewood is being
supplied to the employees free of cost. So the claim to plant red gum
all over is belied by its General Manager's statement. Moreover supply
of fuel wood cannot be said to be a purpose "ancillary to the cultivation
of plantation crops". The Land Board has disallowed the claim for
exemption of 136.17 acres, but it has been allowed in full by the
High Court. Here again the High Court was not justified in interfering
with the Board's finding of fact for there was nothing to show that
it was an area from which crop was not gathered at the relevant time.
If that had been so, it might have been an area within the plantation.
In fact it appears from the order of the Board that no other estate had
made any such claim. The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent
that the Board's decision is restored in both these matters."
Under Section 2 (44) of the Act when land is principally used for
cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon, it would be
plantation and the term 'plantation' also includes agricultural lands interspersed
within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops, namely,
tea, coffee, cardamom etc. and the extent of this area is to be determined by
G the L11nd Board or Taluk Land Board as necessary for the protection and
efficient management of the cultivation of plantation crops. The term
'plantation' also includes land used for the purpose ancillary to the cultivation
of plantation crops or even for the preparation of the same for the market
which also means lands used for the construction of office buildings, godowns,
factories, quarters for workmen, hospitals schools and play grounds. Under
H Section 2(3) 'ceiling area' means the extent of land specified under Section
...
-
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUKLAND BOARD, PEERMADE [D.P. WADHWA,J.)525
82 as the ceiling area. Section 82 prescribes the 'ceiling area' up to which a A
person can hold the land. Section 81 exempts certain lands which may not
fall within the limits of the ceiling area. Plantation, as defined in Section
2(44), is exempt from the rigour of the ceiling area. Sub-section (3) of Section
81 empowers the Government, in public interest, to exempt any other land
over and above the ceiling area and subject to such restrictions and conditions B
as it may deem fit to impose. Section 83 prohibits any person from owning
or holding or possessing land in excess of the ceiling area. Under Section 85
where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area, he is required
to file a statement before the Land Board in the Form prescribed wherein he
is to indicate the lands proposed to be surrendered. Under sub-section (5), the
statement so filed is to be transferred by the Land Board to the Taluk Land C
Board to verify the particulars and then by order to determine the extent of
identity of the land which is surrendered. Under sub-section (9), Taluk Land
Board on certain conditions existing and at any time has power to set aside
its order made under sub-section (5) and proceed fresh under that sub-section.
Sub-section (9A) which was inserted by the Amending Act w.e.f. May 30,
1989, Taluk Land Board has been given powers to review its decisions.
Statement/Return under sub-section (2) of Section 85 is required to be
filed in Form I under rule 4. Rules further prescribe as to how the statement
D
will be filed before the Land Board and then transferred to the Taluk Land
Board, its verification as to ascertainment and determination of the extent and E
identity of the land to be surrendered; publication of draft statement and
service of draft statement on persons interested; enquiry to determine extent
and identity of the land surrendered; and such other matters. Statement under
Section 85(2) in form No.I requires various particulars. Requirements under
Clauses (IO) and (11) of statement are:
"(10) (a) Is any land included in Annexure A in the possession of other
persons by way of mortgage or otherwise and if so,
(b)
have particulars of such land been furnished in Annexure E?
F
(I !)(a)
Is exemption claimed under Section 81 of the Act in respect G
of any land included in Annexure A, and if so,
(b)
have particulars of such land been furnished in Annexure F
and statement under rule 6 in respect of plantation, if any,
been attached?"
Under Annexure A particulars of all lands owned or held or possessed H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A under mortgage on 1.1.1970 are to be furnished. This annexure is divided
into various sections. Under section 1, particulars of land held as owner are
required to be given. Under Sections 2 and 3 respectively, particulars ofland
held as mortgagee and as tenant are to be given.
Under Rule 6 any person claiming exemption under the provisions of
B Chapter III of the Act on the ground that any land owned or held by him or
possessed by him under a mortgage is a plantation, shall furnish to the Land
Board statement showing the following particulars namely:-
c
D
E
F
"(a) description of land (with details of survey number, if surveyed,
taluk and village), us.id by the person principally of the cultivation of
the crops referred to in section 2 ( 44 );
(b) boundaries of the land;
( c) extent of the land:
(d) description of the crop or crops raised and extent of land on
which such crops are raised;
(e) description and extent of the land (with details of survey number,
if surveyed, taluk and village) used by the person for any purpose
ancillary to the cultivating of the crops referred to in section 2 ( 44)
or for the preparation of the same for the market;
(f) purpose for which the land referred to in item (e) is used; and
(g) description and extent of agricultural lands (with details of survey
numbers, if surveyed taluk and village) interspersed within the
boundaries of the area cultivated by the person with the crops referred
to in section 2( 44) and the extent of such lands which the person
considers necessary for the protection and efficient management of
such cultivation.
Taluk Land Board in its order dated July 26, 1980, made after the
G remand, found that out of 924.01 acres claimed by the appellant as fuel
clearing area for firewood for tea manufacture, an area of 421.88 acres
contained Cardamom plantation which had been planted prior to 1964. Taluk
Land Board was of the view that the remaining 302.13 acres out of 924.01
acres should also be exempted as it was satisfied that the area earlier claimed
was interspersed with cardamom plantation. But because it was first claimed
H as fuel clearing area, the interspersed area could not be taken over. It, thus,
·-
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE [D.P. WADHWA, J.]527
exempted whole of924.0l acres holding that it could not be treated as surplus A
land. There have been Eucalyptus trees growing in whole of this area.
On the question of claim of the appellant regarding 136.17 acres as
'rested tea area', reference was made to the observation of the Supreme
Court where this Court said that if plucking was carried on in the said land,
it would be included within the plantation. Taluk Land Board held that in B
view of the affidavit dated1 February 5, 1980 filed by the appellant before it
and on its local inspection there were tree plants more than 60 years old in
the area of 136.17 acres and to that effect there was also a certificate of
United Planters' Association of Southern India (UPASI). Taluk Land Board,
therefore, exempted this area of 136.17 acres under 'rested tea' as part of the
plantation. Of these two points, i.e., fuel clearing area of 924.0 I acres and C
rested tea area of 136.17 acres, decision of the Taluk Land Board was by
majority with the Chairman who is the official member of the Board dissenting
on the ground that these questions could not be re-opened by the Taluk Land
Board after the decision of the Supreme Court dated May 2, 1979. On the
other two heads, namely, the area of202.55 acres under roads and buildings D
and other area of 263 .63 acres as agricultural lands interspersed with other
plantation crops as claimed by the appellant, the decision of the Taluk Land
Board was unanimous. High Court, in the revision filed by the State of
Kerala, agreed with the Taluk Land Board that it could not go into the
question of 'fuel area' and 'rested tea area' after the decision of the Supreme
Court. Appellant was held entitled to 200 acres of land only as fuel area. E
High Court upheld the decision of the Taluk Land Board on the claim of the
appellant for 202.55 acres of land under Building sites and roads. As regards
263.80 acres of land (claimed by the appellant as interspersed with cardamom)
High Court, however, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the
question afresh. High Court upheld the contention of the State Government F
that in the return earlier filed by the appellant it had not claimed any land
under Cardamom plantation and as such exempt from vesting and that appellant
was not entitled to get exemption on any ground other than that shown in the
statement. This Order of the High Court dated November 6, 1984 has now
been challenged before us by the appellant.
The questions which arise for consideration are with respect to the
claims of the appellant for exemption under the following heads :
I.
136.17 acres as rested tea area (disallowed by the High Court);
2.
out of 924.01 acres (earlier claimed as fuel area) 421.88 acres
G
as Cardamom plantation and 302.13 acres as other agricultural H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
land interspersed with other plantation crops (disallowed by the
High Court); and
3.
263.63 acres as other agricultural lands interspersed with
cardamom crops (remanded by the High Court).
B
During the course of hearing, this Court on July 15, 1985 passed the
following order:
c
D
E
"Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties,, we
direct that the Cardamom Board established under Section 4 of the
Cardamom Act, 1965, will appoint one of its Senior Expert officers
to inspect the area of 924 acres said to be cardamom plantation who,
after inspection, will submit a report to this Court on the question of
existence extent of area and age of the cardamom plants in that area
(since it is stated before us by the counsel for the petitioners that
cardamom plants could be of the age varying between 20 to 40 years).
We also direct that the said officer will take the assistance and help
of an appropriate revenue officer to be appointed by the Collector of
Iddikki in the matter of inspection and submission of report. The
inspection is to be undertaken after notice to both sides, whose
representatives will be at liberty to remain present at the inspection.
The report should be submitted to this Court within four months from
today. Such inspection and report will initially be at the cost and
expenses of the Petitioners.
'
Matter to be placed on Board after the receipt of the Report."
Cardamom Board submitted its report accepting the claim of the
appellant as to the existence of the Cardamom plantation prior to 1964 in the
F area of 421.88 acres. State Government, however, filed objections to the
report stating that it could not be valid under the circumstances.
Mr. Salve, learned counsel for the appellant, made following
submissions:-
G
1.
Statement/return, which was filed in Form-I. was without
H
prejudice and this fact find mention in the statement though it
was also mentioned that the appellant was engaged exclusively
in producing, manufacturing and marketing tea and all the lands
held by the appellant was for that purpose. The statement showed
as to how exemption was being claimed for the lands under
Section 81 of the Act.
HOPE PLANTATION LTD. v. TALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMADE [D.P. WADHWA, J.]529
2.
At the time when statement was filed, position of law in relation A
to interpretation of material provisions in the Act was not very
clear. There was an order of the State Land Board (with
supervisory powers over Taluk Land Boards) dated 29.3.1974
granting exemption to fuel areas as lands used for ancillary
purposes to the extent of 16,899 acres for a tea area of 23,239 B
acres under the Kanan Devan hills (Resumption of Lands) Act.
The ratio of fuel area worked out to 2:3. On that basis the chunk
of land was claimed by appellant as fuel area, when as a matter
of fact, appellant wrote a letter dated 18.10.1974 to Special
Tehsildar, (Taluq Officer) Peermade, pointing out that the fuel
areas of the appellant was used for the purpose ancillary to c
cultivation and sought to justify the entire extent of 924 acres
claimed to be bona fide use as fuel areas.
3.
In that very letter which the appellant wrote on 18.10.1974 it
was stated that "the lands interspersed within the tea efficient
management of the. plantation and for the preservation of the D
same. Regarding the last para of your letter, there has been no
conversion of any land into plantation since 1.4.1964. However,
we have planted up cardamom in some of our fuel lands. The
lands so planted with cardamom are now exempt as cardamom
plantation and also as land ancillary to plantation coming within
E
the definition of plantations." In the affidavit dated May 31,
1976 filed by the appellant before the Taluk Land Board, it was
mentioned that there were agricultural lands within the boundaries
of the tea plantations which were required for the protection and
efficient management of plantation. In that, there were also fuel
plantations interspersed within the tea plantations.
F
4.
Under Section 2(44) of the Act, agricultural lands interspersed
within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops,
not exceeding such extent as may be determined by the Land
Board as necessary for the protection and efficient management
of such cultivation was treated as plantation for exemption from G
the ceiling area. At the material time when the Taluk Land
Board made otder dated June 6, 1976, it was not competent to
examine the claim regarding land interspersed with plantation
crops. It was on that account the question had been remanded
to State Land Board for determination. But after the Act was
amended by Amending Act 27 of 1979 w.e.f. 7.7.1979 Taluk H
530
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
Land Board was also empowered to examine the claim in
question. Taluk Land Board, therefore, could rightly go into this
question all over again irrespective of the earlier proceedings
which culminated up to Supreme Court (CA No. 227178).
5.
The proposition of Jaw laid down that fuel wood supply to the
employees cannot be said to be for ancillary purpose, is no
longer good law in the light of the decision of the three learned
Judges of this Court in Pioneer Rubber Plantation v. State of
Kera/a and Anr., [1992] 4 SCC 175. Although that decision is
under Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act,
construing a similar provision, this Court has taken the view
that land used for fuel area is used for ancillary purpose.