Karumpoyil alias Ambali Sreedevi Vs. The Taluk Land Board & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1992
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10694 of 1984)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10694 of 1984)
Petitioner: Karumpoyil alias Ambali Sreedevi
Respondent: The Taluk Land Board & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1992
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10694 of 1984)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10694 of 1984)
Judges: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI & S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 03, 1992
Head Note:
TENANCY AND LAND LAWS
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963:
Section 84(1A) – Appellant received 6 acres of land as gift from her father – Entire land except 2 acres taken possession of – The assumption made by the Board in treating 2 acres of land assigned on registry held wrong – Appellant was entitled to claim relief in respect of the 2 acres of land – The expression any land used in proviso (b) is wide enough to cover even a part of land so as to be out of its purview.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted on the limited question posed. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Undisputably the appellant received 6 acres of land from her father Shri Ravunni, the declarant, and the gift inherfavour was ignored by the authorities under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The gift allegedly had been made in the year 1972 whereas the aforesaid law took stock of holdings as existing on 1-1-1970. Later the law was amended. It appears that the Taluk Land Board and the subordinate officers overlooked sub-section (1A) of Section 84 of the Act which is in the following terms:
84(1A) – Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other author-ity, any voluntary transfer effected by means of a gift deed executed during the period commencing on the Ist day of January, 1970 and ending with the 5th day of November, 1974, by a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his predeceased son or daughter shall be not deemed to be, or ever to have been, invalid –
(a) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift does not exceed the ceiling area specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 82; and
(b) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift exceeds the ceiling area specified in the said clause, to the extent of that ceiling area:
PROVIDED THAT NOTHING contained in this sub-section shall apply-
(a) to a transfer in favour of a person who was an unmarried minor on the Ist day of January, 1970;
(b) in respect of any land which has been assigned on registry under section 96, before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979.
Explanation. – For the purposes of clause (b), a land shall be deemed to have been assigned on registry if the purchase price payable for the assignment of that land or the first instalment thereof has been deposited as required by the rules made under this Act.
3. The High Court too appears to have overlooked it. Though the transfer in favour of the appellant was effected as a result of a partition yet in sum and substance it was treated as a gift by the Taluk Land Board and in our view rightly. With regard to the disposal of land the Taluk Land Board observed as follows:
“The entire land has been taken possession, except 2.00 acres and have already been assigned on registry to various persons. Regarding the remaining 2.00 acres they are in the process of assignment and as such the lands can be treated only as assigned on registry.”
4. If the entire land stands taken possession of it doesnt automatically follow that it stands assigned on registry. The appellant would be entitled to invoke sub-section (1A) of Section 84 for her benefit as the assumption made by the Board in treating two acres of land assigned on registry is wrong. The appellant is entitled therefore, to claim relief only to the extent of 2 acres. The expression any land used in proviso (b) is wide enough to cover even a part of land so as to be out of its purview. Therefore, we are of the view that the assumption made by the Taluk Land Board with regard to the entire land being assigned on registry is without any basis. This alone would merit the appeal being accepted but to the extent of 2 acres only and that shall be taken to have been retrieved from the decision of the Taluk Land Board under sub-section (1A) of Section 84 of the Act. The orders of the TalukLand Board and the High Court to that extent are modified. The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms. No costs.
1. Special leave granted on the limited question posed. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Undisputably the appellant received 6 acres of land from her father Shri Ravunni, the declarant, and the gift inherfavour was ignored by the authorities under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The gift allegedly had been made in the year 1972 whereas the aforesaid law took stock of holdings as existing on 1-1-1970. Later the law was amended. It appears that the Taluk Land Board and the subordinate officers overlooked sub-section (1A) of Section 84 of the Act which is in the following terms:
84(1A) – Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other author-ity, any voluntary transfer effected by means of a gift deed executed during the period commencing on the Ist day of January, 1970 and ending with the 5th day of November, 1974, by a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his predeceased son or daughter shall be not deemed to be, or ever to have been, invalid –
(a) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift does not exceed the ceiling area specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 82; and
(b) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift exceeds the ceiling area specified in the said clause, to the extent of that ceiling area:
PROVIDED THAT NOTHING contained in this sub-section shall apply-
(a) to a transfer in favour of a person who was an unmarried minor on the Ist day of January, 1970;
(b) in respect of any land which has been assigned on registry under section 96, before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979.
Explanation. – For the purposes of clause (b), a land shall be deemed to have been assigned on registry if the purchase price payable for the assignment of that land or the first instalment thereof has been deposited as required by the rules made under this Act.
3. The High Court too appears to have overlooked it. Though the transfer in favour of the appellant was effected as a result of a partition yet in sum and substance it was treated as a gift by the Taluk Land Board and in our view rightly. With regard to the disposal of land the Taluk Land Board observed as follows:
“The entire land has been taken possession, except 2.00 acres and have already been assigned on registry to various persons. Regarding the remaining 2.00 acres they are in the process of assignment and as such the lands can be treated only as assigned on registry.”
4. If the entire land stands taken possession of it doesnt automatically follow that it stands assigned on registry. The appellant would be entitled to invoke sub-section (1A) of Section 84 for her benefit as the assumption made by the Board in treating two acres of land assigned on registry is wrong. The appellant is entitled therefore, to claim relief only to the extent of 2 acres. The expression any land used in proviso (b) is wide enough to cover even a part of land so as to be out of its purview. Therefore, we are of the view that the assumption made by the Taluk Land Board with regard to the entire land being assigned on registry is without any basis. This alone would merit the appeal being accepted but to the extent of 2 acres only and that shall be taken to have been retrieved from the decision of the Taluk Land Board under sub-section (1A) of Section 84 of the Act. The orders of the TalukLand Board and the High Court to that extent are modified. The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms. No costs.
