IDICULA Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD KUNNATHOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Taluk Land Board, Kunnathoor, by the order sought to be revised, found the excess land in the possession of the revision petitioner to be 12. 23 acres and directed him, under the provisions of the kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, to surrender the same. It is aggrieved by that order that he has filed this revision petition.

(2.) ONLY two contentions were pressed on his behalf here by his counsel. They were about exclusion of 5. 50 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 884/442a and B in calculating the total extent of the lands in his possession and exemption of 21. 70 acres of land in survey numbers 884/441 and 444 planted with rubber after 1 4 1964 but before 1-11970.

(3.) ANOTHER ground on which exemption is claimed is that this area is plantation exempted under S. 81 (1) (e) of the Act. The area was planted with rubber after the purchase in 1966. S. 82 (4) of the Act which reads thus: "where after the commencement of this Act, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified to that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion. " directs conversion of lands referred to there being ignored in determining the excess land A Full Bench of this court held in CRP. Nos. 1269, 1503 and 1642 of 1974 and 33 of 1975 (1976 KLT SN 44) that the date of "the commencement of the Act" referred to in S. 82 (4) of the Act is 1-4-1964. S. 82 (4) as it stood prior to 1-1-1970, that is, prior to amendment of act 1 of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969 read as follows: "where after the commencement of this Act, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified therein, the extent of land that may be owned or held by a family or adult unmarried person owning or holding such land at the lime of the conversion shall be determined without taking into account such conversion. " According to counsel for the revision petitioner the 21. 70 acres of land was cashew estate on 1-1-1964, cashew estate was not a class of land specified in Schedule. 11 of the Act, so S. 82 (4) was not attracted at all and cashew estate was exempted under S. 84 (1) (f) of the Act as it stood prior to 1-1-1970. In this regard his argument was two fold. The first was that as cashew estate was not included in Schedule II of the Act the conversion in this case was not of a class of land included in that schedule and so the prohibition in S. 82 (4) did not apply. The second was that as cashew estates were exempted prior to 1-1-1970 from the ceiling provisions and as plantations were exempted from those provisions both before and after 1-1-1970, viewed either as cashew estate or as plantation, the land in this case had in any event to be exempted.