AYIDRU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question relating to the interpretation and scope of S.84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) hereinafter called the Act, arises in these civil revision petitions. Shortly stated the question is whether in view of the specific exception contained in S 84 in respect of voluntary transfers by way of gifts in favour of one's son or daughter or the son or daughter of one's predeceased son or daughter, the lands covered by transactions of this kind effected by a person subsequent to 01/01/1970 are liable to betaken into account for purposes of fixation of the ceiling area of the donor and for determining the extent of the excess land to be surrendered by him. In Narayanan Namboodiri v. Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna, 1975 KLT 171 a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (Chandrasekhara Menon, J.)was a member had occasion to consider and pronounce upon this question. It was held in that case that since under S.83 and 85 every person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified (01/01/1970) has to surrender such excess lands to the Government, any transfer of the excess land effected by such a person to whomsoever and in whatever manner can only be subject to the liability of the transferor to surrender the excess land and that the said liability to surrender excess lands on the basis of the state of affairs existing on 01/01/1970 cannot be avoided by any mode of transfer, and even though such transfers may not be ' invalid under S.84 for all purposes they will have to be ignored in the matter of fixing the ceiling limits. The correctness of the said view expressed by the Division Bench is challenged by the revision petitioners and these cases have been therefore been referred to a Full Bench.

(2.) Before proceeding to consider the question of law we shall briefly state the facts that have given rise to these revision petitions. The revision petitioner in C. R. P. No. 566 of 1975 filed a statement dated 29-5-1972 before the Land Board under S.85(2) of the Act furnishing details of the lands held by bis family consisting of himself, his wife and two minor children. The Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna to whom the said statement was transferred by the Land Board under S.85(5) of the Act, got the particulars verified and prepared a draft statement of the lands to be surrendered by the revision petitioner. The said draft statement, together with a notice in Form 3 under R.12(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 was issued to the revision petitioner and his wife calling upon them to file their objections, if any, against the extent and identity of the lands indicated in the draft statement as the lands to be surrendered by the petitioner and to appear for a hearing before the Taluk Land Board on 21-12-1974. In response to the said notice the revision petitioner appeared before the Taluk Land Board and filed an objection petition wherein, inter alia, he took the plea that an extent of 2.98 acres had been transferred by him by way of gift in favour of his children in 1973 as per a gift deed registered as document No. 485 of 1973 in the Sub Registry Office, Perintalmanna. The Taluk Land Board rejected the said contention by applying to the case the dictum laid down by the Division Bench in Narayanan Namboodiri v. Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna 1975 KLT 171, and ordered that an extent of 1.12 acres should be surrendered to Government by the revision petitioner as excess land. The petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the said order passed by the Taluk Land Board.

(3.) C. R. P. No. 970 of 1975 arises out of an order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Kuttanad holding that a transfer effected by the revision petitioner of 10 acres of land in favour of his sons as per a gift deed dated 25 3 1970 was to be ignored in fixing the petitioner's ceiling area and in determining the extent of excess land to be surrendered by the petitioner and that the petitioner is consequently liable to surrender an extent of 2 acres 44.541 cents. The petitioner contends that since the deed of gift executed by him falls within the excepted category mentioned in sub-s.(1) of S.84 the Taluk Land Board was in error in ignoring the said transaction and treating the lands comprised in the gift deed as properties owned or held by the petitioner.