CHETTIAN VEETIL AMMAD C MATHEW JAYASHREE TEA AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED RAVI KARUNA KARAN E V PAUL P A SIVASUBRAMONIAN V G KURIAKOSE C A VENKATACHALLAM CHETTIAR SUBHADRA SMT VARGHESE MARIAM P J VETRIVEL P M KURUVILLA THO Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the appellants have categorically stated at the Bar that no question relating to the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), hereafter referred to as the Act, or any of its provisions, arises in these appeals by special leave. We have heard them together virtually as companion appeals at the instance of learned counsel for they arise out of several judgments of the High Court of Kerala in matters relating to the implementation of the provisions for the restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area and the disposal of excess land. These are the subject-matter of Chapter III of the Act, as amended from time to time. It is not necessary to refer to the dates of all the judgments of the High Court of Kerala, or to all the points of controversy there, as learned counsel have been able to channelise their arguments into three main points of controversy, which have been argued at length. It is true that all these points do not arise in all the cases before us, and some learned counsel have raised additional arguments in the peculiar facts and circumstances of their cases. It will therefore be convenient and proper to deal with the three main points first, and to take up the additional points for consideration with reference to the appeals in which they have been raised for our consideration. This, it is agreed, will be a proper and a fair course to adopt for the disposal of these appeals. It is also agreed by learned counsel that the other appeals in which such additional points have not been raised shall stand decided according to our decision on the three main points.

(2.) In order to understand the controversy in its proper perspective, it may be mentioned that, as in the other States in the country, the Kerala State Legislature felt the necessity of making 'comprehensive' land reforms in the State. The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act 4 of 1961) was accordingly passed, and received the assent of the President on January 21, 1961. Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect from February 15, 1961. This Court struck down that Act as unconstitutional in its application to the ryotwari lands of Hosdrug and Kasaragod taluks. The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, was then passed for the temporary protection of tenants in these taluks. The State High Court declared it null and void in its application to the ryotwari lands of the Malabar area and most of the lands of Travancore area. So the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1963, was passed to provide some protection to tenants. It was an interim legislation. Even so it repealed the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, and suspended the operation of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960.

(3.) After re-examining the requirements in the filed of land reforms as a whole, the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, was published in State Gazette on September 15, 1963. It covered a vide field in the matter of land reforms and, inter alia, provided for the imposition of a ceiling on 'holdings' of lands, the surrender of excess lands, grant of compensation therefore, and the assignment of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order of priority mentioned in the Bill, collection of purchase price, constitution of Land Tribunals and Land Board etc. The Bill was enacted as the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), and received the assent of the President on December 31, 1963. It was amended extensively, and in several material particulars, by Act 35 of 1969, and then by Act 25 of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972. There were other amendments also, but it is agreed that they do not bear on the controversy before us.