KRISHNA PERCJMUDARAYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises in this civil revision is whether proviso (b) to S.84(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964 prohibits the restoration of excess lands surrendered in a ceiling case if the lands surrendered are lands other than the lands gifted and which gift was validated with retrospective effect by Act 27 of 1979.

(2.) The challenge in this civil revision is against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod rejecting an application under S.85(10) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964, for short the Act, for restoration of lands surrendered in a ceiling case in view of the validation of gifts made by S.84(1A) of the Act inserted by the amending Act 27 of 1979. An extent of 4.03 acres was surrendered as excess lands in pursuance of an order of the Taluk Land Board passed on 12-2-1976. This was because a gift deed dated 21-8-1974 was treated by the Taluk Land Board as invalid. Since Act 27 of 1979 validated such gifts, the petitioners submitted an application under S.85(10.) of the Act for restoration as the declarant in the ceiling case would have only lands within the ceiling limits if the gift was not ignored. Though the Taluk Land Board upheld the validity of the gift, it did not order restoration for the reason that the lands surrendered were already assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act as early as 16-6-1976.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in this case the lands surrendered as excess lands were not the lands gifted and hence the fact that those lands were assigned on registry before the commencement of amending Act 27 of 1979 cannot stand in the way of restoration of these lands as the prohibition in proviso (b) to S.84(1A) can only affect the lands governed by sub-s.(1A) which can only be the lands gifted. It was also contended that if the proviso applies to any land assigned on registry, sub-s.(10), (11) and (12) of S.85 also inserted by the same amending Act 27 of 1979 will become otiose. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the order of the Taluk Land Board refusing restoration on the around that the excess lands surrendered were already assigned on registry before the commencement of Act 27 of 1979 is illegal and hence should be interfered with. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred to R. N. Sons Ltd. v. Asst. Sales Tax Commissioner ( AIR 1955 SC 765 ), Abdul Jabar v. State of J. & K. ( AIR 1957 SC 281 ), S. P. K. Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra ( AIR 1961 SC 1596 ), Kedarnath J. M. Co. v. G. T. Officer ( AIR 1966 SC 12 ), Sales Tax Officer Jabalpur v. Hanuman Prasad ( AIR 1967 SC 565 ), Dwaraka Prasad v. Dwaraka Das Saraf ( 1976 (1) SCC 128 ) and Mariam v. Xavier ( 1971 KLT 709 ). Reference was also made to Cross on Statutory Interpretation, 1976 Edn. pages 104 and 105.