STATE OF KERALA Vs. M T JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave raise the question whether the Kerala High Court had correctly interpreted and applied S. 8 of the Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act) to the cases before us. This provision reads as follows:

(2.) The facts upon which the provision was sought to be applied are these:On 23 October, 1939, the Government of Travancore sanctioned a scheme for the reclamation of the Vimbana Lake upon terms and conditions which were set forth in a document dated 4 October, 1939. The agreement provided that one M. T. Joseph and his father on payment of Rs.10/- per acre, which were to be recovered in ten equal instalments, would be given possession of certain tracts of land which they undertook to reclaim. For the first two years after what is called the "Registry" of the names of two lessees no tax was to be levied. The "Registry" was liable to be cancelled if adequate progress was not made within these two years. It appears that the agreement was modified by an order dated 12 February, 1941, and a fresh agreement was executed in July 1941 by M. T. Joseph (now dead) who entered into possession of Kayal land, constructed the ring bunds at considerable expense, and brought the very large tracts of land to be reclaimed under paddy cultivation. In June 1957, M. T. Joseph executed a deed of settlement of all this land after he had acquired full ownership rights fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The Act which is sought to be now applied was then passed. After that, the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 was passed so that the "State Land Board" started proceedings for the surrender of these lands in accordance with the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The only question now before us in whether, by an application of Section 8 of the Act, the whole land is to be treated as a single unit belonging to M. T. Joseph (since dead), or, the dispositions made by M. T. Joseph, under the deed of settlement, executed by him on15th June. 1957, distributing the land among his children, resulted in separate units for the purposes of compensation for the land surrendered. If the children had acquired rights under the deed of settlement each of them could be treated as entitled to compensation for a separate unit. If the deed was of no effect, the mere fact that the children were in possession, under the authority from their father, could not change the ownership of the land in the constructive possession of the father.