http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

P.J. THOMAS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1992

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

KANIA, M.H. (CJ)

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:

1992 AIR 1144 1992 SCR (2) 147

1993 SCC Supl. (1) 300 JT 1992 (2) 307

1992 SCALE (1)667

ACT:

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 :

Section 81 to 84- Ceiling area-Computation of-Cashew

estate exempted from Ceiling-Exemption withdrawn from

1.1.1970-Conversion of Cashew estate into rubber plantation

in 1967-Whether rubber plantation eligible for exemption.

HEADNOTE:

Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963,

containing sections 81 to 98A relating to restriction on

ownership and possession of land in excess of Ceiling Area,

came into force on 1.4.1964. However, Section 82 came into

force on 1.1.1970, the appointed day. Under this Section the

Ceiling area of land which an individual or a family,as the

case may be, was entitled to hold was fixed. In computing

the ceiling area the lands exempted under Section 82 was to

be excluded. Sub-section (4) of the Section provided that

where, after the commencement of the Act, any class of land

specified in Schedule II had 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 should be determined,

without taking into consideration such conversion.

Section 81(1)(f), as it originally stood exempted

cashew estates existing at the commencement of the Act, and

having a contiguous extent of ten acres or more from the

operation of Chapter III. This exemption was however, taken

away by a subsequent amendment by Act. No. 35 of 1969, and

,as on 1.1.1970, cashew estate, having an extent of ten

acres or more was liable to be included in the computation

of the ceiling area. Under Section 81(1)(e), `Plantation',

as defined under the Act was also exempted. Plantation was

also specified in Schedule II.

Under Section 84, all voluntary transfers effected

after the date of publication of Kerala Land Reforms Bill,

1963, by a family or any member

148

there of holding land in excess of the ceiling area were

deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions

of the Act and invalid.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

On 1.1.1970, when Section 82 of the Act came into

force, the appellant was holding 31 acres 6.5 cents of land,

including 14.5 acres of rubber plantation, which was

originally cashew estate. The appellant had converted the

casew estate into rubber plantation in 1967. His claim for

exempting the rubber plantation from the computation under

Section 81(1)(e) was rejected by the Taluk Land Board, in

view of the provisions in sub-section (4) of Section 82,

since cashew estate was not an exempted category on

1.1.1970. In revision, the High Court . affirmed the Taluk

Land Board's decision.

In the appeal before this court, on behalf of the

appellant, it was contended that a conversion of land

falling under one exempted category to another exempted

category did not come under the mischief of sub-section (4)

of Section 82, and that the provisions of Chapter III did

not apply to the lands specified in Section 81 and that

since plantation was not included in sub-section (4) of

Section 82 as it stood before 1.1.1970 and was included only

with effect from 1.1.1970, the conversion of cashew estate

into plantation before the amendment was not attracted by

the said sub-section.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD:1.1 The transfer falling under Section 84 cannot be

equated to the conversion falling under Section 82(4). The

ceiling provisions contained in section 82 and 83 came into

force on 1.1.1970. The computation of the ceiling area has

to be made in accordance with the provisions contained under

section 82 as it stood on 1.1.1970. Under sub-section (4) of

section 82 where any class of land specified in Schedule II

has been converted into a plantation after the commencement

of the Act, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a

person owning or holding such land has to be determined

without taking into consideration such conversion. Cashew

estate is land specified in Schedule II as on 1.4.1964 as

well as on 1.1.1970. Therefore, the conversion of cashew

estate after 1.4.1964 and before 1.1.1970 into plantation

would squarely fall under the mischief of this sub-section.

The fact that cashew estate was an exempted category until

1.1.1970 does not make any difference so long as the

exemption was not available as on 1.1.1970 when the

computation was to be made. If the exemption continued on

1.1.1970, sub-section

149

section (6) would entitle the holder to have the land

excluded under the provisions of sub-section (6). Since the

computation is made as on 1.1.1970 and the land held as on

that date ignoring the conversion effected after 1.4.1964

is not exempted, the case has no analogy to the transfer of

exempted land prior to 1.1.1970 falling under clause (1). At

the time when the transfer was effected the land was

exempted. The provision of section 82 was not applicable.

It is for that reason that the transfer has to be held

valid. So far as conversion is concerned, the land

continues to be held by the owner and the law is clear

that such conversion is to be ignored in computing the

ceiling area.[153G-H, 154A-E]

1.2 In the instant case the land, in question, was

cashew estate prior to 1.4.1964 and it has been converted

into rubber plantation after that date and before 1.1.1970.

As the conversion has to be ignored, the land could be

treated only as cashew estate for the purpose of computation

and not as plantation. Therefore, the exemption claimed by

the appellant has been rightly rejected. [154F]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

JUDGMENT:

State of Kerala v. Philomina , AIR 1976 SC 2363,

distinguished.

Chettiam Veettil Ammad V. Taluk Land Board, [1979] 3

SCR 839, referred to.

State of Kerala v. Thomas, (1987) 1 KLT 530, Ramunni

Nair v. State of Kerala, (1976) KLT 632 and Aleykutty John.

v. Taluk Land Board,(1981) KLT 731, referred to.

&

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2247 of

1992.

From the Judgement and Order dated 10.10.80 of the

Kerala High Court in C.R.P.No 3783 of 1977-A.

T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and Mrs. K.

Prasanthi for the Appellants.

Joseph Vellapally, K.R. Nambiar and P.K. Pillai for the

Respondents.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Leave granted.

150

This appeal arising from proceedings under the Kerala

Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), as amended by Act

35 of 1969, raises the question of exemption provided under

section 81 of the Act.

The Act is enacted as a comprehensive legislation

relating to land reforms in the State of Kerala. The

respective provisions of the Act came into force on the

appointed days as notified by the Government. Different days

had been appointed for different provisions. Chapter III

containing section 81 to 98A relates to the restriction on

ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area

and disposal of excess lands. Except section 83, the other

provision in this chapter came into force on 1.4.1964

1.1.1970 had been notified as the appointed day on which

section 82 was to be enforced.

Under section 82, the ceiling area of land which an

individual or family, as the case may be, is entitled to

hold has been fixed. In computing the ceiling area the

lands exempted under section 82 shall be excluded. Section

82(4) reads-

"s.82(4). Where, after the commencement of this

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 surrendered by a

person owning or holding such land shall be

determined without taking into consideration such

conversion."

Section 2(55) defines "standard acre" thus-

"s.2(55)."standard acre" means in relation to any

class of land specified in Scheduled II situate in

the district or Taluk mentioned therein, the extent

of land specified against it in that Schedule."

Schedule II specifies the class of land and extent of

land specified for the purpose of conversion as standard

acres. Dry land principally cultivated with cashew is

specified under Schedule II as equivalent to two standard

acres. Section 81(1)(f), as it originally stood exempted

cashew estates existing at the commencement of the Act and

having a contiguous extent of ten acres or more from the

operation of Chapter III. Thus at the commencement of the

Act cashew estates having a contiguous extent of ten

151

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

acres or more was an exempted category. This exemption was

taken away by a subsequent amendment by Act 35 of 1969.

Thus, as on 1.1.1970 cashew estate having an extent of ten

acres or more was liable to be included in the computation

of the ceiling area. "Plantation" has been defined in

section 2(44) thus-

"s.2(44)." Plantation" means any land used by a

person principally for the cultivation of tea,

coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon

(hereinafter in this clause referred to as

`plantation crops') and includes-

(a) land used by the said person for any purpose

ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops or

for the preparation of the same for the market;

(b) Land contiguous to, or in the vicinity of, or

within the boundaries of, the area cultivated with

plantation crops, not exceeding twenty per cent of

the area so cultivates and reserved by the said

person and fit for the expansion of such

cultivation;

(c) agricultural lands, interspersed within the

boundaries of the area cultivated by the said

person with plantation crops, not exceeding such

extent as may be determined by the Land Board or

the Taluk Land Board as necessary for the

protection and efficient management of such

cultivation.

Explanation :- Lands used for the construction of

office buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for

workmen, hospitals, school and play ground shall be

deemed to be lands used for the purpose of sub-

clause(a)."

"Plantation", as defined in the Act, is exempted under

clause(e) of sub-section(1) of section 81. "Plantation " is

also land specified in Schedule II.

The appellant, as on 1.1.1970, was holding 31 acres 6.5

cents of land. This includes 14.5 acres of rubber

plantation which was originally cashew estate. The

appellant converted cashew estate into rubber plantation in

1967. The claim for exempting the rubber plantation from

the computation was rejected by the Taluk Land Board in view

of the provisions in sub-section (4) of section 82 on the

ground that cashew estate was not an exempted

152

category on 1.1.1970. The High Court in revision affirmed

the decision of the Taluk Land Board on this point.

The appellant, while reiterating the claim for

exemption under section 81(1)(e), has urged that a

conversion of land falling under one exempted category to

another exempted category does not come under the mischief

of sub-section(4) and, therefore, the impugned decision is

wrong. Shri Krishnamurthy Iyer, the senior counsel for

the appellant, maintains that the provisions of Chapter III

d;o not apply to the lands specified in section 81 and if

the provisions do not apply, section 82(4) in Chapter III

can have no application to plantation. It is therefore,

argued that conversion of any land into plantation is not

attracted by sub-section (4) of section 82. Another limb of

his argument is that sub-section (4) of section 82 has been

amended from time to time and as it stood before 1.1.1970,

plantation was not included in that sub-section. Since

plantation has been included only with effect from 1.1.1970,

the conversion of cashew estate into plantation before the

amendment is not attracted by the sub-section. The learned

counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

of Kerala v. Philomina, AIR 1976 SC 2363. That decision

related to transfer falling under section 84(3). Kayal

Padasekharams of Kuttanad area specified in Schedule IV so

long as such padasekharams are used for the cultivation of

paddy or such other crops as the Government may notify, had

been exempted under clause (I) of sub-section (1) of section

81. This clause was, however, omitted by Act 35 of 1964.

Under section 84 all voluntary transfers effected after the

date of publication of Kerala Land Reforms Bill,1963 by a

family or any member thereof holding land in excess of the

ceiling area shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to

defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid. In

State of kerala v. Thomas, (1987) 1 KLT 530, the question

arose whether voluntary transfers of Kayal Padasekharams

made between 15.9.63 and 1.1.70 were invalid. The High Court

of Kerala held that such transfers were valid. That

decision was affirmed by this Court in State of Kerala v.

Philomina (supra). On the ratio of this decision it was

maintained that the provision contained in section 84(3) did

not have any repercussion at all on the exemptions granted

under section 81(1) was not effected. This Court stated

thus-

"So even though by virtue of section 84 of the Act

all voluntary transfers effected after September

15, 1963 (date of publication of Kerala Land

Reforms Bill, 1963 in the Gazette) were

153

invalid, the transfers made in respect of Kayal

padasekharams in appeals No. 907-909 could not be

held to be invalid for the simple reason that they

were exempt from the provisions of Chapter III.

That exemption was no doubt withdrawn by section 65

of Act 35 of 1969 which amended the Act but it is

not disputed before us that the section was not

brought into force until January 1, 1970. The

Voluntary transfers made between September 15,1963

and January 1, 1970 were therefore valid, and there

is no force in the argument of the Advocate General

that the amendment brought about by section 65 of

Act 35 of 1969 should be given retrospective effect

from April 1, 1964 as Section 82 and 84 of the Act

were brought into force from that date. There is

also no force in the other argument of the Advocate

General that Section 84 had the effect of

invalidating the transfers effected after September

15, 1963 for that was the date of publication of

the Kerala Land Reforms Bill in the gazette. The

argument overlooks the fact that, as has been

mentioned, Kayal lands were exempt from the

provisions of Chapter III until as late as January

1.1970.

It is well settled that a statute is not to be read

retrospectively except of necessity. There is no

such necessity in the cases before us, for the

legislature decided to exempt the aforesaid Kayal

lands from the operation of the restrictions and

even though amending Act 35 of 1969 was promulgated

on December 17,1969. Section 65 therefore which

withdrew the exemption, was not brought into force

until January 1,1970."

It is argued that the same principle should be applied

in respect of exemption falling under clause(F) of sub-

section(1) of section 81. Reliance has also been placed on

Full Bench decision in Ramunni Nair v. State of Kerala,

(1976) KLT 632 and Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6

Board, [1979] 3 SCR 839.

The transfer falling under section 84 cannot be equated

to the conversion falling under section 82(4). The ceiling

provisions contained in section 82 and 83 came into force on

1.1.1970. The Computation of the ceiling area has to be

made in accordance with the provisions contained

154

under section 82 as it stood on 1.1.1970. Under sub-

section(4) of section 82 where any class of land specified

in Scheduled II has been converted into a plantation after

the commencement of the Act, the extent of land liable to

be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land has

to be determined without taking into consideration such

conversion. Cashew estate is land specified in Scheduled II

as on 1.4.1964 as well as on 1.1.1970 Therefore, the

conversion of cashew estate after 1.4.1964 and before

1.1.1970 into plantation would squarely fall under the

mischief of this sub-section. The fact that cashew estate

was an exempted category until 1.1.1970 does not make any

difference so long as the exemption was not available as on

1.1.1970 when the computation was to be made. If the

exemption continued on 1.1.1970, sub-section(6) would

entitle the holder to have the land excluded under the

provisions of sub-section(6). Since the computation is made

as on 1.1.1970 and the land held as on that date ignoring

the conversion effected after 1.4.1964 is not exempted the

case has no analogy to the transfer of exempted land prior

to 1.1.1970 falling under clause (1). At the time when the

transfer was effected the land was exempted. The provision

of section 82 was not applicable. It is for that reason

that the transfer has to be held valid. So far as

conversion is concerned, the land continue to be held by the

owner and the law is clear that such conversion is to be

ignored in computing the ceiling area. There is, therefore,

no force in the contention advanced on the basis of

aforesaid decision.

We shall also refer to the decision of the Kerala High

Court in Aleykutty John v. Taluk Land Board, (1981) KLT 731

and Ramunni Nair v. State of Kerala, (1976) KLT 632. There

has not been serious controversy on the fact that the land

in question was cashew estate prior to 1.4.1964 and that it

had been converted into rubber plantation after that date

and before 1.1.1970. As the conversion has to be ignored the

land could be treated only as cashew estate for the purpose

of computation and not as plantation. The Exemption claimed

has been rightly rejected.

There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly

dismissed.

N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.

155