STATE OF KERALA Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is the petitioner.The respondents were directed to surrender 3.56.817 acres of land.They filed C.R.P.4268 of 1976 against the said order.This Court remanded the case and directed the Land Board to consider whether the two sale deeds executed by the 1st respondent in the year 1959 were wholly invalid or only to the extent they took in property exceeding the ceiling area.The Land Board after remand held that the declarant and his family were not in possession of any excess land.This revision is directed against that order.

(2.) THE declarant was in possession of 18.62.500 acres of land.Out of this an extent of 1.63.500 acres of land was in the exempted category.The declarant was entitled to retain 13.42.183 acres of land.The excess land as on 1 -1 -1970 with him was 3.56.817.The declarant had as per document Nos.3415/69 and 3417/69 sold properties having an extent of 7.63 acres.The question that fell to be considered in the earlier C.R.P.was whether the two documents were wholly invalid or only to the extent they took in excess land.The Land Board has now found that the transactions could be invalid only to the extent they took in the excess area so far as the declarant is concerned.The respondents 'counsel attempts to sustain the order both on the ground that the order is in accordance with the direction contained in the remand order of this court and also relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Kesavan Namboodiri v.State &others(1976 KLT 427 ).The Government Pleader on the other hand tries to contend that the order sutlers from an apparent error in that the Land Board did not properly understand the principles settled by the Full Bench in the decision mentioned above.

(3.) I will now advert to the submissions made on the Full Bench decision reported in 1976 KLT 427 also.The Government Pleader submits that the decision holds that a transaction coming within the mischief of S.84 of the Land Reforms Act would be invalid in toto while the respondents 'counsel understands it to mean that it is bad to the extent it takes in the excess land.I find it difficult to agree with the manner in which the State's counsel understands the Full Bench decision.The important point that has to be borne in mind is that the relevant date for determination of the ceiling area is 1 -1 -1970.Documents of transfer prior to that date may take in lands in excess of the ceiling area.If for the purpose of determining the ceiling area,the entire lands covered by a transaction that took place prior to 1 -1 -1970 is to be taken into account along with the lands which the declarant held as on 1 -1 -1970,and not the excess lands covered by the transaction alone,the Land Board will be determining the ceiling area not with reference to 1 -1 -1970,the date under the Act,but with reference to the date on which the transaction took place.What the Government Pleader wants to do in this case is to tack on the 7.63 acres of land covered by the two documents along with the declarant's land as on 1 -1 -1970 and then contend that the excess land from such total has to be directed to be surrendered.This,I am afraid cannot be permitted because by doing so,the Land Board will be invalidating even the valid portion of the transaction that took place prior to 1 -1 -1970.On the facts of the Full Bench case also,this is the conclusion deducible.There the Full Bench was dealing with a post 1 -1 -1970 transaction.In that case,the declarant had only excess of 6 cents of land as on 1 -1 -1970.He was entitled to hold 7.50 acres of land.He assigned 1.50 acres of land to his sister.The Full Bench held that the transaction in favour of the sister was bad only to the extent of the excess 6 cents and not in its entirety.