CRP No. 3051 of 2000 · Kerala High Court

K.T. SANKARAN, J. ...................................................................................C.R.P.No. 3051 OF 2000...................................................................................Dated this the 29th February, 2008

O R D E RThe application filed by the petitioners under Section 85(8) of the Kerala LandReforms Act was rejected by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady in TLB. 119/73 byorder dated 14.07.2000. This order is under challenge in this Revision.

The declarant M.P. Kannan Nair was the sole surviving member of the family and was entitled to hold an extent of 7.50 acres of land. The ceiling case against him was disposed of on 16.01.1976. Later, the proceedings were re-opened under section85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In the revised draft statement, the total extent of land included in the account of the declarant was 15.21 acres. The declarant was directed to surrender an extent of 6.45 acres. The declarant contended that he had gifted several items of property to his major children and that an extent of 7 acres of land was transferred to Kunhiraman Nair, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, as per registered document No.1224 of 1965. The Taluk Land Board held that the transaction in favour of Kunhiraman Nair was invalid under section 84 of the KeralaLand Reforms Act. The claim petition filed by the petitioners was accordingly rejected.

After the the order was passed by the Taluk Land Board and after the Revision was filed, the Kerala Land Reforms Act was amended by the Kerala LandReforms (Amendment) Act 2005 (Act 21 of 2006). By the amendment, Section 7E and Section 84(4) were inserted. The aforesaid provisions read as follows: “” 7 E. Certain persons who acquired lands to be deemed tenants:-- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in C.R.P.No. 3051 OF 20002section 74 or section 84 or in any other provisions of this Act, or in anyother law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, a person who at the commencement of the Kerala LandReforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, is in possession of any land, not exceeding four hectares in extent, acquired by him or his predecessor-in-interest by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area; during the period between the date of the commencement of the Kerala LandReforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), and the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, shall be deemed to be atenant.” In Section 84, sub-section (4) was also inserted, which reads as follows: “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1 A)or (2), or in any judgment, decree, or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, no acquisition of land referred to in section 7E shall be deemed to be invalid, or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that the land so acquired was found included as, or forming part of, the land liable to be surrendered by the transferor as excess land under the provisions of this Act and no suit or other proceedings including proceedings for eviction relating to the said land shall be instituted, maintained or continued in any court or tribunal against any person who is a deemed tenant under section 7E and every such suit or proceeding spending shall stand abated; Provided that, no ceiling cases wherein excess land has been physically taken over and distributed to landless labourers or reserved for public purposes as provided in this Act shall be reopened.

In view of the aforesaid amendment, the order passed by the Taluk LandBoard cannot be sustained. It is a matter for decision by the Taluk Land Board as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the Kerala Land Reforms(Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 21 of 2006 ). In view of the subsequent developments, itis necessary to remand the case to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the case is remanded to the TalukLand Board for fresh disposal of the claim petition filed by the petitioners. No order asto costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P.No. 3051 OF 20004 K.T. SANKARAN, J......................................................... C.R.P. No. 3051 OF 2000 ......................................................... Dated this the 29th February, 2008

O R D E R