RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for consideration is whether in a ceiling proceedings reopened by virtue of S.85(6A) inserted by Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 19 of 1981 in S.85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964, ceiling can be fixed by taking into account the lands of the deceased declarant and the lands owned individually by the legal heir at the time when the proceedings were reopened. In this case, the petitioner's father filed a ceiling return on 14-12-1972 showing that he holds a total extent of 9.68 acres as the sole surviving member of a family. Then, on 6-9-1974 he died. That was before the issue of the draft statement on 27-6-1978. The draft statement was served on the petitioner son who is the only legal representative of the deceased declarant. The petitioner son filed his objections on 1-8-1978. Thereupon; on 21-11-1978 the Taluk Land Board dropped the proceedings in which the petitioner's deceased father filed the return, on the basis of a decision of this Court reported in Janaki Amma v. State of Kerala ( 1979 KLT 271 ). It was thereafter that S.85 of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 was amended by inserting sub-s.(6A) which empowered the Taluk Land Board to continue the proceedings where the declarants died before the issue of the draft statement. S.7 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 19 of 1981 contains transitory provisions to reopen the proceedings in cases where the proceedings were dropped consequent on the death of the declarant.

(2.) The Taluk Land Board reopened the proceedings as per its order dated 18-8-1981 by virtue of S.85(6A) inserted by the Amendment Act 19 of 1981. The petitioner filed his objections. Then, on 28-9-1981 the authorised officer, as per his report, pointed out that the draft statement issued to the petitioner has taken in land originally owned by the petitioner in his individual capacity and also belonging to third parties. But the Taluk Land Board by its order impugned in this civil revision fixed the ceiling of the petitioner taking into account the lands originally owned by him in his individual capacity and the lands he is said to have inherited from the declarant, his deceased father. The question is whether this is proper.

(3.) Sub-s.(6A) inserted in S.85 of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 reads: