CHACKO JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is coming to this Court a second time against the order of the Land Board fixing the extent of the excess land to be surrendered by him. By the proceedings of the Land Board dated 12-6-1974 the petitioner was directed to surrender 1.34 acres being the extent of land found in excess of the ceiling area. He filed C. R. P. No. 837 of 1974 before this Court and contended that he is not in possession of any excess land if the lands held by him are properly classified and the ceiling area fixed. His grievance was that an extent of 2 acres 74 cents in Sy. No. 741/2 and 70 cents in Sy. No. 579/8 is only a dry land and not coconut garden as shown in the draft statement. This Court set aside the order of the Land Board for reconsideration in view of the two conflicting reports about the nature of the lands and conversion of some of them after 1-4-1964. On remand the Secretary of the Land Board was deputed to make a local verification and on the basis of his report a fresh order was passed by the Land Board classifying a major portion of the above land as garden land and fixing the excess land to be surrendered. According to the Land Board, in 70 cents there are 15 bearing coconut trees aged 60 to 75 years, and 11 stumps of coconut trees cut. In Sy. No. 741/2, 2 acres 74 cents, there are 88 coconut trees. It is inter cultivated with rubber plants planted in the year 1970. An extent of 35 cents is cultivated with tapioca and an extent of 4 cents is rocky. From this the Land Board has drawn an inference that as on 1-4-1964 the principal cultivation in the land was coconut and the principal income from the above property was from coconut trees though tapioca, ginger etc. were also cultivated. Therefore, the entire extent of the above survey numbers excepting 35 cents cultivated with tapioca and 4 cents of rocky portion was treated as coconut garden'.

(2.) The question is whether this inference is correct in law. 'Garden' is defined in S.2(15) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as meaning "land used principally for growing coconut trees, arecanut trees or pepper vines, or any two or more of the same." This definition is more or less a copy of the definition of 'garden land' in S.3(g) of the Malabar Tenancy Act which reads as follows:--

(3.) There is much force in this contention. To constitute a 'garden' as defined in the Act it is not necessary that the land should be used principally for growing anyone alone of the above categories of cultivations. It is enough if the land is used is principally for growing either coconut trees or arecanut trees or pepper vines or any two or more of the same. But, that is not enough for the purpose of classification of lands for the purpose of ceiling and surrender of excess land. The ceiling area is fixed with reference to standard acres and in respect of garden lands standard acre is fixed with reference to the nature of cultivation in a garden. (See Schedule II of the Act). Standard acre will vary according to the nature of the garden land. If the land is used principally for growing coconut trees, the standard acre will be equal to an ordinary acre in majority of the Districts In other districts it is not so. Similarly, if the land is used principally for growing arecanut trees, one half of an ordinary acre will be taken as a standard acre. Similarly, in the case of gardens principally used for growing peppervines, a standard acre will not be equivalent to an ordinary acre Again, in the matter of fixing compensation, the rate per acre of a garden land used principally for growing coconut trees is different from the rate fixed for a garden land used principally for growing arecanut trees or peppervines. It is not with reference to the other kinds of trees that the expression 'used principally for growing coconut or arecanut trees or peppervines' is mentioned in the Act. In such land the principal growth must be either coconut trees or arecanut trees or peppervines, and unless such cultivation exists in major portion of the land normally that land may not be classified as land used principally for growing one or other of the varieties of trees required to make it a garden for fixing the standard acre. A land cannot be said to be used principally for growing any category of trees if the number of such trees when compared to the extent is small. For the purpose of revenue settlement in Travancore a land was taken as fully planted if there were 100 or more coconut trees or 800 and more arecanut trees in one acre. For land acquisition purposes also, if the market value is to be determined on income basis one cent was set part for one coconut tree. In the Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, a land is deemed to be fully planted if there are 100 coconut trees or 720 arecanut trees in one acre of land. In the Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, 80 trees are taken as normally grown in one acre. At the time of enacting the Land Reforms Act, the Legislature was aware of these laws. Any land which is not, with reference to its normal capacity to have anyone of the above varieties of trees, used fully for that should have at least half of the number of such trees per acre to call it 'used principally'. The expression 'principally' is used in contradistinction to 'partly' or "wholly'. So in classifying a garden as land used principally for growing any variety of trees it is reasonable to infer that the intention of the Legislature was that in such land the number of such trees should be at least half of the number of trees an ordinary acre of land can normally contain.