KATTITE VALAPPIL PATHUMMA Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, rendered in C. R. P. 1894 of 1988, dated 18-7-1994. The appellants are the legal representatives of T. Mammad, the 'declarant' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The declarant had three wives and ten children by the said three wives. He filed a declaration regarding the land held and possessed by him before the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') In his statement, he had opted his wife Pathu (first wife) and her minor children as his 'statutory family" by ex-exercising the option specified in Explanation 1 to Section 82 of the Act. The Board, by order dated 28-8-1986 directed the declarant to surrender 160.54 acres of land held by him in excess of the ceiling area. In revision. C. R. P. 2131 of 1986 the High Court set aside the order of the Board and ordered a remit. Thereafter the Board by order dated 28-6-1988 passed a fresh order determining 97.16 acres as surplus land of the declarant. The Board also noticed that the declarant had already surrendered 43.20 acres as surplus land and, therefore, the declarant was directed to surrender the remaining area. The order so passed by the Board was assailed in revision before the High Court of Kerala in C.R.P. No. 1894 of 1988. The declarant and after his demise his legal representatives contended that the declarant having three wives and ten children in the three wives, each wife and her children shall be deemed to be a separate family under Explanation 1 to Section 82 of the act and, therefore, the ceiling area in respect of each family has to be deducted from the total holding of the declarant. This plea was repelled by the High Court. The High Court held thus:-

(2.) We heard counsel. The submission made before the High Court was repeated before us. Counsel contended that the declarant having three wives and ten children by the said three wives each wife and the children by her shall be deemed to be a separate family under the Explanation I to Section 82 of the Act, and, therefore, the ceiling area in respect of each family has to be deducted from the total holdings of the declarant. It was argued that the other wives and their minor children shall be deemed to be separate families and so the ceiling area in the respect of each such family has to be deducted from the total holdings of the declarant so that the other two wives and their minor children shall not be deprived of their legitimate right to get a larger area. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State submitted that on a fair and proper reading of Section 82 along with the explanations, it will be evident that when a declarant-husband has plurality of wives and children by exercise of the option under Explanation 1, the husband can be a member of only one such family and not of all the families simultaneously and only the lands owned by the husband and the family so chosen by him will be taken into account for calculating the ceiling area of a family. It was argued, that the lands owned or possessed by the other wives and members of their families will not be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area in respect of the family constituted by the husband, one of his wives and unmarried minor children in that wife, which constitute the statutory family for the purpose of computing the ceiling area. Section 82 was understood and interpreted in that light by the High court of Kerala ever since the Act came into force and the High Court in the impugned judgment has only given effect to the said legal position. A different view is not warranted specially at this stage when the law laid down by the High Court and followed in the impugned judgment has held the field for more than two decades.

(3.) On hearing the rival pleas, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference.