S KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash Ext. P3, an order, by which Government declined to interfere in revision, with Ext. P2, which was an order by which the Assistant Collector and Executive First Class Magistrate, refused relief to the petitioner under Clause.4A of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1958, which may be referred to hereafter as the Order. The petitioners wife and respondents 2 and 3 herein are adjoining land owners. It was common ground, that in an area of 21 cents of land belonging to respondents 2 and 3, which may be referred to as the respondents land, and which lies contiguous with the land of the petitioners wife, which may be referred to as the petitioners land, paddy crop was raised for both crops in each of the years 1132, 1133 and 1134, M. E.; it was also not in dispute, that no paddy was raised in the respondents land for the Kanni crop of 1135. The petitioner applied on September 7, 1959, corresponding to Chingam 22, 1135, under Clause.4-A of the Order, to the Collector complaining, that respondents 2 and 3 were converting their land into a garden so as to affect the petitioners paddy land prejudicially. By Ext. P2, Clause.4A was held to be inapplicable, for the reason, that paddy cultivation was not raised in the respondents land during the last three years. This view was taken, because the crop for 1135 was not raised. It may be mentioned, that Clause.4A which was introduced in the Order by way of amendment, came into force on August 18, 1959, that is, in Chingom 1135, and apparently, the reasoning in Ext. P2 is, that there had been no cultivation from the month of Medom or so, till the end of Karkadakom, in the year 1134.

(2.) The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 raised a preliminary objection, that the petitioner has no locus standi for two reasons, first, that the petitioners wife and not the petitioner, is the owner of the land, and second, that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved by Exts. P2 and P3 within the meaning of the Order. The petitioner claims to be in management on behalf of his wife and it seems to me, on a reading of Clause.4A of the Order, that no interest, much less a proprietory interest, in the land is necessary, to bring home to the Collector, that interference by him is called for. The second reason was attempted to be developed in the following manner. The Order was promulgated in pursuance of S.3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act X of 1955) which provides that

(3.) On the merits it is clear, that both Exts. P2 and P3 proceed upon a misconception. As noticed, there had been cultivation for two crops in each of the years 1132, 1133 and 1134. There is no force in the argument, that there had not been cultivation during those years, as no cultivation was begun in the month of Medom 1134, for raising the Kanni crop of 1135. On the argument, if pushed to the logical extreme, the interval between one harvest and the commencement of the cultivation for the next crop, would also have to be excluded. I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument as quite untenable. For a seasonal cultivation like paddy, in the case of a double-crop land as in the present case, where both crops have been harvested during the year, the reasonable view is, that the cultivation during that year is complete. If, as I hold, this is the correct interpretation, the requisite condition of cultivation during the last three years, viz., 1132, 1133 and 1134, has been fulfilled in this case. Exts. P2 and P3 cannot therefore be supported.