Roman Catholic Diocese of Mananthavady v. Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram; Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady; State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** # **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 4TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010(U)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF MANANTHAVADY BISHOP'S HOUSE, MANANTHAVADY,, WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PROCURATOR, FR.GERVASIS MATTAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE LAND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 THE TALUK LAND BOARD MANANTHAVADY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA- REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **SMT.DIVYA S;GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner in this writ petition is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mananthavady, which is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act. By Ext.P1(a) proceedings of the Taluk Land Board dated 31.12.1976, the Taluk Land Board had dropped further actions on the ceiling return filed on behalf of the petitioner institution by taking note of the provisions under Section 98A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ( 'the Act' for short) and holding that the petitioner would not fall within the definition of 'person' for the purposes of Chapter III of the Act. This was because the petitioner was found to be an institution of public nature for religious and charitable purposes established and maintained by a religious denomination or a section thereof. 2. Many years later, through Ext.P2 communication dated 19.5.1992, the 1[st] respondent sought information from the 2[nd] respondent regarding whether or not the petitioner had submitted any ceiling return. The petitioner, on coming to know of the said communication, informed the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, who was the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board of the details of ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -3- the properties held by it. Thereafter, on finding that there was no specific response to the report called for from the 2[nd] respondent, the 1[st] respondent reiterated his request by Ext.P4 communication dated 12.12.1996, addressed to the 2[nd] respondent. This was followed by Ext.P5 communication from the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner seeking details of the land possessed by the petitioner, so as to forward the same to the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P6 reply clearly indicating the lands held by it and pointing out that by Ext.P1(a) proceedings dated 31.12.1976, the 2[nd] respondent had already found that the petitioner is not a person within the meaning of the term under Section 98A of the Act and that proceedings initiated against him had been dropped. 3. Notwithstanding the said reply given by the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent directed the 2[nd] respondent to forward a formal proposal so as to accord sanction for initiating _suo motu_ action against the petitioner. The 2[nd] respondent thereupon forwarded such a proposal by a communication dated 21.03.1998(Ext.P8). Acting on the said proposal, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P11 notice to the petitioner initiating _suo motu_ proceedings under Section 85(7) of the Act. 4. In the writ petition, Ext.P11 notice is impugned by the ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -4- petitioner _inter alia_ on the contention that the 1[st] respondent could not have issued such a notice since the petitioner was not a person for the purposes of Chapter III of the Act, and further, the said issue had already been found in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P1(a) proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent dated 31.12.1976. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent wherein, the sequence of events detailed in the writ petition is reiterated. 6. The argument of the petitioner with regard to the applicability of Section 98A is met by stating that through Ext.P11 notice, the petitioner has been given ample chance to establish its case before the 2[nd] respondent, and hence, the challenge to the notice at this stage is unwarranted. It is also stated that insofar as the institution holds an extent of almost 251.87 acres, it is obliged to file a statement under the Act, and even if its contention is that it is not a person for the purposes of Chapter III of the Act, the said question cannot be decided by the 2[nd] respondent, as was done in this case, but only by the Government in terms of the explanation under Section 98A of the Act. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -5- petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in _**[1979 KLT 313] ( Sister Anchela v. State of Kerala)**_ to contend that in view of Section 98A of the Act, a religious denomination will not be a person who is bound to file a ceiling return under Section 85A of the Act. It is pointed out that in the said case, it was noted by the Division Bench that the petitioner in the said case, who, despite not being bound to file a ceiling return had in fact filed the returns, was held to be to some extent responsible for the confusion created. It is contended, therefore, that even if the power to determine whether or not an institution is a person exempted from filing ceiling returns in terms of Section 98A, is only in the Government, in the instant case, Ext.P1(a) order of the 2[nd] respondent has not been impugned in any subsequent proceedings, and so far as the petitioner is concerned, the said order has attained finality. 9. _Per contra,_ it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader that although Section 98A excludes certain persons from the ambit of Chapter III of the Act, and the obligation to file ceiling returns under Section 85, the exemption provision under Section 81(1)(t) of the ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -6- Act, clearly provides that lands owned or held by a religious, charitable or educational institution of public nature will be exempted from the ceiling provisions. It is pointed out that the second proviso to the said provision deals with the situation where the institution or trust comes to hold the said lands after the commencement of the Act, and in such cases, the exemption will apply only to such lands as have been previously certified by the Government to be _bona fide_ required for the purposes of the institution or trust, as the case may be. It is pointed out that, in the instant case, the property in question, held by the petitioner, was one that was transferred to the petitioner by the predecessor-in-interest after the commencement of the Act, and hence, in the absence of a prior permission from the Government to hold such lands, the petitioner could not have escaped from its obligation to file ceiling returns in respect of the said land. 10. On a consideration of the rival submission, I find that it is not in dispute that by Ext.P1(a) proceedings dated 31.12.1976, the 2[nd] respondent had dropped the proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner on the finding that the petitioner was not a person obliged to file ceiling returns for the purposes of the Act. 11. While it may be a fact that subsequent decisions of this **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -7- Court have held that the Taluk Land Board cannot determine the issue as to whether or not an institution can claim the benefit of Section 98A of the Act, and it is only the Government that can determine the said issue, the fact remains that Ext.P1(a) proceedings of the Taluk Land Board have not been impugned in any further proceedings and have attained finality. That being the case, and in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in _**Sister Anchela's case (supra)**_ , it is apparent that in the face of Ext.P1(a) proceedings, Ext.P11 notice cannot be legally sustained. The said notice is purportedly issued under Section 85(7) of the Act. The said provision reads as under; “where any person fails to file the statement specified under Sub-section (2) or [sub-section (3A)] [the Land Board shall intimate that fact to the Taluk Land Board, and thereupon the Taluk Land Board shall] after necessary enquiries, by order, determine the extent and other particulars of the land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered: provided that before such determination the [Taluk Land Board] shall give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land, to be heard.” 12. The power to initiate proceedings under Section 85(7) arises only when a person fails to file the statement specified under Sections 85(2) or 85(3)A. Both these provisions referred to a “person” who owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling area. Inasmuch as the petitioner has been found to be not a person for the purposes of Chapter III of the Act, in the absence of a challenge to Ext.P1(a) proceedings, the ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -8- invocation of the power under Section 85(7) could not have been done in the instant case. Thus, in any view of the matter, Ext.P11 notice cannot be legally sustained. I therefore allow this writ petition, by quashing Ext.P11 notice with consequential reliefs to the petitioner. **SD/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** SJ ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE DIOCESE ALONG WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-121976 IN T.L.B. 243 OF 1973 (TLY) OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD TELLICHERRY.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-5-1992 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY LAND BOARD, TO THE CHAIRMAN TALUK LAND BOARD** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER WHO IS ALSO THE CHAIRMAN, DATED 12-12-1992** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12-12-1996 ISSUED BY THE LAND BOARD TO THE TALUK LAND BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-51997 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN TALUK LAND BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18-91997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN TALUK LAND BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21-2-1998 ISSUED BY THE LAND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE TALUK LAND BOARD MANANTHAVADY.** ## **WP(C).No.9968 OF 2010** -10- **EXHIBIT P8** **A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-31998 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P9** **A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3-2-1998** **EXHIBIT P10** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-41998 REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER OF THE STATE LAND BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P11** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LB(B) 4- 4636/09 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE LAND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**