K C SUNDARAM CINEMA PROPRIETOR Vs. UMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate has been preferred against the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court dated 18th August, 1977 rendered in C.R.P. No. 1472/ 76. The question raised in the appeal relates to the construction of S. 2(52) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('Act). Before we set out the section, we may refer to the facts in brief. The land in dispute once belonged to the Paliam family - next in affluence only to the Cochin Royal family in. the Cochin State (now part of the State). In a partition of the Paliam, the Jenm right in the property was allotted to Madusoodanan Kuttan Achan (DW-2). He had about 200 acres of land in his possession. On March 25, 1959, DW-2 transferred one acre of land out of his holding to the appellant. That land was in the possession of a tenant Ramasetty, the predecessor of the present respondent-Uma Devi. The appellant approached the Land Tribunal seeking resumption of the land from the tenant on the ground that he was a small holder. The relief was sought under S. 16-A. The Tribunal dismissed the application, but the appellate authority accepted the appeal and granted the relief sought. Thereupon, the tenant approached the High Court under S. 103 of the Land Reforms Act by way of revision. In view of the conflicting views expressed in some of the cases, the matter eventually came before the Full Bench. The Full Bench has set aside the order of the appellate authority. It has stated that the apellant could not be considered as a small holder in view of the Explanation to S. 2(52) of the Act.

(2.) The small holder enjoys certain special privileges and concessions under the Act. One. of the concessions is that he is entitled under certain circumstances and conditions to resume possession of the whole land in occupation of the tenant (Section 16-A). The plea of the tenant was that DW-2 was in possession of and had interest in land exceeding the limits specified in Section 2(52). He had transferred after 18th December, 1957 one acre of land to the transferee and transferee consequently would not be entitled to exercise the right of a small holder under the Explanation to Section 2(52). For the transferee, the argument was that the Explanation would not be applicable to him. It was contended that in order to attract the Explanation, two conditions must be satisfied viz.; (i) that the transfer should have been after 18-12-57; and (ii) that it should have the result of reducing the extent of the holding of the limit required to entitle a person to the status of a small holder.

(3.) The High Court has held that a transfer or a partition effected after 18-12-57 will have the disqualifying effect provided by the Explanation to Section 2(52), irrespective of whether it does or does not reduce the extent of the holding to the limits indicated in the said provision. In other words, the High Court has stated that both the aforesaid conditions need not be satisfied, it would only the first of the conditions to be satisfied to disqualify the transferee.