KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUO motu proceedings were initiated against the 4th respondent herein, representing his statutory family consisting of himself and others, including the two revision petitioners herein, who are his minor sons (minor on 1-1-1970) and the Taluk Land Board passed orders determining the surplus land held by him. In CRP. No. 557 of 1977 this Court set aside the order subject to the payment of costs and directed the Taluk Land Board to reconsider the two questions mentioned in that order. After remand, the revision petitioners, who have subsequent to 1-1-1970 attained majority, filed a petition before the Taluk Land Board to get themselves impleaded with a view to get an opportunity to urge their contentions. The Taluk Land Board did not implead them, but proceeded to decide the other questions left open by this court and passed a fresh final order against the 4th respondent. This order is now challenged in this revision.

(2.) I am satisfied that the Taluk Land Board has committed an error of law in declining to implead the revision petitioner or hear their contentions. In fact one of the questions left open in the remand order was the question whether the first revision petitioner was or was not a major on 1-1-1970. 1 fail to see who else, other than this person, would be more interested in getting a decision about his status as on 1-1-1970. The learned government Pleader submitted that a person, who is a minor on 1-1-1970 and therefore a member of a statutory family, has no right to be heard by the Land board even if the property belonging to such a person is involved in the ceiling proceedings. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with this extreme contention. It is true that S. 85 (2a) of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short the 'act') invests the liability to file a declaration only on the persons specified therein, because the legislature intended to hold those persons liable to be prosecuted and punished if such persons do not give the declaration. The fact that the father of the minors, who are members of the statutory family, is liable to give a declaration does not mean that the minors cannot be heard in the ceiling case either during their minority or after they attain majority. In this case proceedings were initiated against the father of the revision petitioners It cannot be said that the revision petitioners are not interested in the proceedings initiated against their father wherein is involved property belonging to them as well. The Act does not indicate anywhere as to who are to be beard by the Land Board and who need not be heard It is something fundamental with our jurisprudence that when action is being taken against a person or when an order is being passed which will affect the interests of a person or when the property of a person is dealt with, such a person must have a right of hearing. Such a right is not denied by any of the provisions of the Act Far from there being any denial of this basic right, R. 12 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules (for short the 'rules') specifically recognises the right of such persons to be heard. R. 12 deals with service of draft statement and notice to persons interested. Clause (I) (i) deals with adult unmarried person Sub-clause (ii) deals with family. In case of a family, the rule contemplates service of notice on the husband and the wife or such of them as exist or where the family consists of only minors, service has to be effected on the guardian, manager or other person in charge of such minor. Sub-clause (iii) deals with notice to any other person. R. 12 (2) states that the notice may be served on all other persons, so 'far as may be known, who have or are likely to have any claim to, or interest in the, ownership or possession or both of the lands indicated in such draft statement as lands to be surrendered.