M.M.J. Plantations v. State of Kerala and Taluk Land Board, Peermedu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/5TH KARTHIKA, 1936 ## CRP(LR).No. 293 of 2013 () --------------------------ORDER NO. C5 49108/81 & C5 41366/87 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMEDU DATED 30-05-2013 ## REVISION PETITIONER/DELCLARANT: -------------------------------------------------------- M.M.J. PLANTATIONS, MANARKATTU BUILDINGS, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER REJI MICHAEL. BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. TALUK LAND BOARD, PEERMEDU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI-685 531. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA R. BHAT. THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: “C.R.” **==> picture [335 x 69] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [84 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** Can the assignee of the property from the declarant on his own defend the proceedings for determination of the excess lands under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short)? 2. The Taluk Land Board, Peermedu by order dated 24.1.1979 directed the declarant - Shree Tea Company - to surrender 8.30 acres of land as in excess of its ceiling limit. The Taluk Land Board in so doing granted exemption in respect of the following lands as necessary for the protection and efficient management of the cultivation in 'Bon-Ami Estate':- |Sl.No<br>.|Category|Extent (in<br>acres)| |---|---|---| |1|Tea Area|687.31| |2|Roads, Bye-roads<br>and footpath|40.92| |3|Tea Nursery|4| |4|Temple, Churches,<br>Playgrounds,<br>Schools etc.|12.83| |5|Buildings, layams<br>and allied<br>structures|65.07| |6|Swamps and Streams|67.61| |7|Fuel Area|102.87| CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 2 |Sl.No<br>.|Category|Extent (in<br>acres)| |---|---|---| |8|Area for future<br>development|11| ||TOTAL|991.61| It is not disputed that the declarant duly surrendered the extent of 8.30 acres on 15.05.1979 in satisfaction of its liability to surrender lands as in excess of the ceiling limit. 3. The Taluk Land Board thereafter issued a notice in the year 1981 purporting to re-open the ceiling case under Section 85(9) of the Act which was challenged by the declarant in O.P.No.5567/1981. The same was disposed of by judgment dated 04.02.1986 reserving the right of the declarant to urge all its contentions before the Taluk Land Board itself. The declarant had in the meanwhile transferred its rights over Bon-Ami Plantations in favour of one Mr.Joseph Michael by sale deed dated 24.05.1984. Mr. Joseph Michael was said to be the Managing Partner of M/s. M.M.J. Plantations and his legal heirs are now in possession of Bon-Ami estate. The Taluk Land Board has by order dated 30.05.2013 directed M/s. M.M.J. CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 3 Plantations to surrender an additional extent as excess lands in satisfaction of its liability. Exemption earlier granted towards Fuel Area, Tea Nursery, Play Ground and Swamps and Streams has been denied which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. The principal contention of the revision petitioner is that sufficient opportunity was not extended to it by the Taluk Land Board before taking away the exemption earlier granted. The revision petitioner points out that the Taluk Land Board has relied on two reports of the Special Deputy Tahsildar dated 28.05.1997 and 18.01.2006. But neither were the copy of the reports served on the revision petitioner nor even its contents divulged before the Taluk Land Board relied on the same. The revision petitioner adds that exemption was validly granted in the order dated 24.01.1979 which ought not to have been deleted in the order dated 30.05.2013. The Special Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition by the assignee from the declarant. It is contended relying on Section 85 (6A) of the Act that only the legal heirs 4 CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 of the declarant against whom the proceedings do not abate have alone the locus standi. The plea of the State in other words is that the transferee of the property cannot challenge the order for surrender of excess lands held by the declarant. 5. I heard Mr.Ramesh Chander, Senior Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mrs.Susheela R.Bhat, Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of the State. 6. The Special Government Pleader very much relies on Section 85 (6A) of the Act to buttress her contentions on the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition. The statutory provision is as follows:- “85. Surrender of excess lands:- (1) x x x x (2) x x x x (3) x x x x (4) x x x x (5) x x x x (6) X X X X (6A) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that proceedings for the determination of the extent and other particulars of any land, the ownership or CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 5 possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered by an adult unmarried person or a family, shall not abate on the death of that adult unmarried person or, as the case may be, the sole surviving member of that family where it consists of only one person, or the member of that family who filed the statement under this section or under Section 85A in the case of any other family, but shall be continued against the legal representatives of such adult unmarried person or sole surviving member or the remaining member or members of such family, as the case may be, and such legal representatives or remaining member or members shall be bound to surrender the same extent of land as such adult unmarried person or sole surviving member or such family would have been liable to surrender, if such adult unmarried person or sole surviving member or the person who filed such statement, as the case may be, were alive on the date of determination of the extent and other particulars of the land.” It is clear therefore that ceiling proceedings do not abate on the death of an adult unmarried person or the sole surviving member of a family or the member who filed the statement as the case may be. But the ceiling case would continue against the legal 6 CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 representatives of such adult unmarried person or sole surviving member or remaining members of the family. Section 85 (6A) of the Act does not speak of any liability or right on the part of the transferee of the property which is the subject matter of the ceiling proceedings from the declarant. Does it mean that the transferee of the property from the declarant cannot defend the proceedings initiated for determination of the liability to surrender excess lands? 7. The Supreme Court dealing with the power of the Taluk Land Board to determine the surrenderable lands observed in State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew [1998 (1) KLT 749 (SC)] as follows:- “We are therefore, of the considered view that the persons who succeeds to the estate of the deceased and is found to be in possession or holds land in excess under colour of title or by illegal means would also be liable to be proceeded with under S.85(7) in computation of the excess land owned or held by the deceased person.”(emphasis supplied) Thus a person who is found to be in possession or holds land in excess under a colour of title is as much bound 7 CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 as the legal representatives to surrender the lands held by the declarant as in excess. The term 'person' has been defined under Section 2(43) of the Act to include a company, association or other body of individuals capable of holding property. The revision petitioner in the instant case holds the property under a colour of title evidenced by the sale deed dated 24.05.1984 executed by the declarant. Such a person who is liable to be proceeded against under Section 85 (7) of the Act is certainly a person aggrieved by the final order passed by the Taluk Land Board. A person aggrieved by any final order of the Taluk Land Board is entitled to maintain a Civil Revision Petition under Section 103 (1) (iii) of the Act. I therefore reject the objection of the State that the petitioner being a transferee of the property from the declarant cannot maintain the Civil Revision Petition. 8. What survives for consideration is the denial of exemption which was earlier granted in regard to the Fuel Area, Tea Nursery, Play Ground and Swamps and Streams. The exemption is sought on the ground that the aforesaid categories of lands are necessary CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 8 for the protection and efficient management of the cultivation in the plantation. A quick reference to Section 2(44)(c) of the Act is apposite:- “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) x x x x (b) x x x x (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 the case may be as necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation.”(emphasis supplied). It is now concluded in C.Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board [AIR 1979 SC 1573] that fuel area is not ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops and necessary for its protection and efficient management. This decision of the Supreme Court has been followed in State of Kerala v. Amalgamated Tea Estates Co. Ltd. [1980 KLT 728] and therefore the Taluk Land Board was justified in deleting the exemption on that ground. CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 9 9. There is however no proper consideration as to why the exemption shall be denied to Tea Nursery, Play Ground and Swamps and Streams which was earlier granted by the Taluk Land Board. The term 'interspersed' means 'to put here and there among other things' (see the New Lexican Webster's Dictionary of the English Language). The statutory provision implies that the scattering of Tea Nursery, Play Ground and Swamps and Streams should be within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops. The said category of lands should also be necessary for the protection and efficient management of cultivation in order to qualify for 'plantation' under Section 2(44)(c) of the Act. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is laconic and there is no consideration as to whether the categories of the land are liable to be exempted as a plantation under Section 81(1)(e) of the Act. 10. I set aside the impugned order for the limited purpose of re-considering the question of exemption in the categories of Tea Nursery, Play Ground and Swamps and Streams. The order of the Taluk Land Board in all other respects are hereby confirmed 10 CRP (LR) No.293 of 2013 and every endeavour shall be made to finalise the proceedings within a period of four months. It is reported that two other files - C5-7760/2000 D and C542146/2013 are pending on the file of Taluk Land Board in relation to the same subject matter. All the files shall be dealt with together so that the matter can be given a quiteous early by the Taluk Land Board in the determination of excess lands. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. ncd