KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case has been referred to the Full Bench is view of the importance of the question raised in the Civil Revision Petition. THE revision is against an order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Hosdrug in the matter of the ceiling return filed by the petitioner under S. 85a of the Kerala land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 (in short, the Act ). THE return was filed by him before the Land Board, Trivandrum showing the details of land owned or held by him as an adult unmarried person. THE return so filed was transferred by the Land Board under S. 85a (3) of the act to the Taluk Land Board for disposal by it. THE Special Deputy Tahsildar was directed by the Taluk Land Board to verify the return and after such verification the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered was provisionally determined. Notice in Form No. 3 along with the draft statement in Form No. 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules was issued to the assessee calling upon him to file objections, if any, to the draft. THE ceiling limit applicable to the petitioner was 7. 50 acres and in the view that he held excess land he was directed to surrender 1 acre 24. 5 cents. This proposal was objected to by the petitioner. According to him he did not hold any excess land and any land was not liable to be surrendered. This objection was not accepted with the result that by the final order passed by the Taluk Board the petitioner was directed to surrender possession of 1 acre 24. 583 cents of land in R. S. No. 26/1. It is this order that is the subject-matter of the Civil Revision petition.

(2.) THAT the petitioner is an adult unmarried person is admitted. The extent of land he could hold as ceiling area would be 5 standard acres working out to not more than 7. 50 acres. It is such 7. 50 acres that the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of as on that date to be notified under S. 83. The date notified is 1-1-1970. But on 1-1-1970 the petitioner did not own or hold any land except 6 cents, about which there is some controversy which will be referred to later. He acquired land thereafter. On 29-3-1971 he purchased 7. 50 acres of land which extent, according to him, was within the ceiling area. On 30-4-1971 he assigned 1. 50 acres out of this area to his sister with the result that he was in possession of only 6 acres. On 5-8-1971 he purchased 1. 10 acres of land and came into possession of that area. On 16101971 he purchased another item of 13. 5 cents of land. Thus, according to him, he was not in possession of more than 7. 50 acres of land at any time and therefore he was not liable to surrender any extent of land. It appears that when the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) was asked to verify the return be found that on 2 31962 the petitioner's mother had acquired 19 cents of land in her name as also that of the petitioner and his brother. It was therefore assumed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar that the petitioner was entitled to 1/3rd of 19 cents working out to 61/3 cents. It was further assumed that when on 29 3 1971 the petitioner purchased 7. 50 acres be really held not only that area but in addition the said area of 6 cents (61/3 cents rounded off to 6 ). If so the transfer effected by him on 30 41971 of 1. 50 acres of land was, according to the Special Deputy Tahsildar, void. Therefore it was found that the properties transferred in favour of his sister were also to be considered as property held by him.

(3.) COURTS have been, from time to time, called upon to construe the provisions of statutes capable of a narrow as well as a wide meaning. The object of the Act, the context in which the provision occurs, and the purpose sought to be achieved by the provision may quite often supply the clue to the-appropriate meaning. If two alternative constructions are equally possible the one which is consistent with the scheme envisaged by the enactment and which promotes the purpose and object of the provision is to be preferred. The legislative intent and purpose behind the provision and the result sought to be achieved will have to be considered. The meaning to be attributed must be consistent with the intent and the result sought to be achieved. The adoption of a wider meaning may result in extending the scope of the provision to matters which may not be necessary to be provided for under the scheme of the act or for the purpose of the Act and to attribute such a wide meaning may lead to undesirable results. In such cases the adoption of a wider meaning ought : to be avoided.