RAGHAVAN NAIR Vs. NARAYANA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit O.S. 100 of 1966 filed by the respondent was pending on 1-1-1970, for recovery of possession of a property outstanding with the revision petitioner under a document of 1956. After the amendment of Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act I of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969 the petitioner claimed tenancy right under S.7B of the amended Act. The claim was allowed as per decree dated 24-7-1970. The respondents thereafter filed an application for resumption of the land under S.17 and 22 of the Act as O.A. 13 of 1973 claiming that they were small holders. The petitioner raised the plea of limitation and contended that the petition should have been filed under S.18 of the Act, within a period of one year from the commencement of Act I of 1964. The Land Tribunal before whom the petition was filed upheld the plea of limitation and dismissed the petition for resumption. In appeal, the appellate authority reversed the finding and held that there was no bar of limitation. The finding of the appellate authority is being challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) S.17 of the Land Reforms Act confers on the small holder the right to resume a portion of the holding outstanding with a tenant not exceeding one half provided that by such resumption the total extent of the land in the possession of the small holder is not raised above 2 1/2 standard acres or 5 acres. S.18 lays down the general conditions and restrictions applicable to resumption. The relevant portion reads:

(3.) In the instant case there was no admitted tenancy on the date of coming into force of Act I of 1964. The suit for recovery of possession was filed only in the year 1966. A tenancy right in favour of the petitioner was recognised only by virtue of S.7B the Act which came into force on 1-1-1970. The decree in O.S. 100 of 1966 declaring the petitioner a tenant was passed on 24-7-1970. Subsequent to the decree S.7B was struck down as ultra vires of the legislature and the provision became law only after Act 35 of 1969 was included in the IXth schedule to the Constitution. There is no doubt the contention that inclusion in the IXth schedule takes effect from the date of commencement of the Act, namely 1-1-1970. But this is of no consequence because the period of one year prescribed for filing application for resumption expired one year after the commencement of Act I of 1964; it was only where the landlord came under the category of persons mentioned in the proviso to S.18 that the period stood extended to six months from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969.