ALEYKUTTY JOHN Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has been directed by the Taluk Land Board to surrender excess land determined as 41.80 acres. The only controversy surviving for consideration now is whether the exemption claimed by the revision petitioner for an area of 40 acres said to have been converted from private forest into rubber plantation is to be allowed. The Taluk Land Board rejected the claim for exemption under S.81(1)(e) of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the conversion into rubber plantation was made after 1-1-1970. Though the Taluk Land Board thought that the clear felling of the private forest might have been over by 1965, it did not choose to grant the exemption under S.81(1)(d) of the Act.

(2.) Before going into this controversy, I shall refer to S.87 of the Kerala Act I of 1964. S.87 states that persons acquiring land after 1-1-1970 (the date notified under S.83) will have to account for the same and surrender land held in excess of the ceiling area, if any. The explanation to the section as it originally stood stated that where any land is exempted by or under S.81 and such exemption is in force on 1-1-1970, the notified date, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after 1-1-1970. In Raghavan v. State of Kerala and others ( 1977 KLT 57 ), this Court held that the explanation to S.87 can apply only to exemptions contemplated under clauses (b) (h) and (k) of S.81(1) and not to exemptions contemplated under the other clauses of S.81(1). Poti, J. (as he then was) pointed out that this would result in large areas of exempted land such as private forests being converted after 1-1-1970 into valuable cocoanut gardens or other types of lands and persons owning such lands would be enabled to retain such large areas contrary to the legislative policy underlying the Act and suggested that this could be remedied only by legislative intervention. By Amending Act 27 of 1979, the explanation to S.87 has been recast. The amended Explanation states that where, after the date notified under S.83, any class of land specified in Schedule.2 has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or where any land exempt under S.81 from the provisions of Chap.3 is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date. In other words, if land which was say, private forest on 1-4-64 and therefore entitled to exemption under S.81 of the Act has been converted after 1-1-1970 into cocoanut garden or any other class of land specified in Schedule.2, it will cease to be exempted land on the date of conversion and the person concerned will have to account for the same and surrender land held in excess of ceiling area, if any. I am adverting to this because the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that the conversion in this case from private forest into rubber plantation was after 1-1-1970 and the correctness of this conclusion is challenged now. If in case it is to be ultimately held that this is a case of conversion after 1-1-1970, even then this land cannot be directed to be accounted for in proceedings under S.85 of the Act. Separate proceedings will have to be initiated under S.87 of the Act, if the explanation to that section is attracted to the case. It is contended that the explanation is not attracted because conversion is into plantation.

(3.) According to the revision petitioner the entire 40 acres was a private forest as on 1-4-1964 and was converted into rubber plantation after 1-4-1964 and before 1-1-1970. Permit for clear felling was obtained from the Collector in 1963. Neither the date of the permit nor the period stipulated therein is known. The Taluk Land Board thought that clear felling might have been over by 1965 and that the land remained waste till the replanting took place in 1971 and therefore the land cannot be treated as private forest as on 1-1-1970. The factual basis for and the legal position implied in this conclusion are seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. What the Taluk Land Board implies is that land will be exempt as private forest only if it was the private forest on 1-1-1970 and that it is not sufficient that the land was private forest on 1-4-1964.