RAMA IYER Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are against 2 orders of the Taluk Land Board, Parur In CRP. No. 1928 of 1976 challenge is made to an order passed against the petitioner in that revision petition, he being the son of the petitioner in CRP. No. 3105 of 1976 The latter petition is by the father who challenges the order of the Taluk Land Board passed against him. Both orders are passed in proceedings relating to surrender of excess land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The son as well as the father were found to own excess land. The son has been directed to surrender 1.10 acres of land and the father has been directed to surrender 4.55.819 acres of land. For the sake of convenience I will refer to the petitioners by their names, the son as Rama Iyer and the father as Sahasranama Iyer.

(2.) Sri. Sahasranama Iyer obtained lands from his joint family for the share of his branch somewhere about the year 1950 In 1957 he had a wife and 3 children (one of them being a daughter) as members of his branch. The ancestral properties obtained by the branch were partitioned under a deed dated 16-8-1957. The minors were represented in this deed by their mother. The father, mother and each of the children took properties of the joint family separately as their respective shares and that is how Rama Ayyar, one of the sons, came to possess separate properties from that date. It is in respect of these lands that he has now been called upon to surrender excess land. He was a minor on the date of the partition deed and is said to have attained majority some time before 1-1-1970 As on 1-1-1970 he was an adult unmarried person. On that day his father was the head of a 'family' (as defined under the Kerala Land Reforms Act) consisting of 2 members namely himself and his wife.

(3.) Apart from some minor questions to which I will presently refer, in both the cases there is a common question and that is of some importance. Allied to the purpose of S.84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, (in short the Act) which provides for invalidating transfers effected after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the Government gazette, there is provision in the explanation to S.85(1) of the Act which deems transfers effected after 18-12-1957 and prior to the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the Government Gazette except in certain specified cases as transfers to be ignored for the purpose of determining the extent of land owned or held by the transferor as on 1-1-1970. S.84 which declares that such offending transfers shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and invalid has been construed by this Court as rendering such transfers invalid only to the extent such transfers deal with excess land. It has been so held by a Full Bench in Kesavan Namboodiri v. State of Kerala and others ( 1976 KLT 427 ). That is because consistent with the purpose for which S.84 has been incorporated in the Act it is only proper to assume that the invalidation is for the specific object of securing that the provisions of the Act are not defeated. Such provisions are defeated only if the person deals with excess land. Therefore if the person who is holding excess land deals with land by way of transfer not only to the extent of excess land but even of land within the ceiling limit there is no purpose served by treating the transfer as invalid to any extent other than that of the excess. That was the reason why the expression in S.84 "shall be invalid" has been read by this Court in the decision adverted to as invalid to the extent of the excess.