MOHANAN NAMBIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition arises from a proceeding initiated under S. 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

(2.) S. 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides that where any person acquires any land after the date notified under S. 83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed. The date notified under S. 83 is 1-1-1970. The Department should establish that the person against whom S. 87 proceedings are initiated, is one who has acquired the land after 1-1-1970 by gift, purchase etc. or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance etc; or else the proceedings cannot be maintained under S. 87. These are conditions precedent and unless these conditions are satisfied, the proceedings cannot be maintained.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader, however, submits that on the petitioners getting married, they have become 'a family' within the meaning of S. 2 (14) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. THE lands held by the petitioners thereafter will be treated as the lands belonging to the family. THE family, therefore, must be deemed to have acquired these lands with effect from the date of marriage, i. e. 15-1-1970. In support of this argument, the learned Government Pleader relied on the expression'or otherwise' in S. 87 of the Act. S. 87: 87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc. , to be surrendered.- Where any person acquires any land after the date notified under s. 83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed. Explanation. 2. Where any land is exempted by or under s. 81 and such exemption is in force on the date notified under S. 83, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under S. 83. Explanation. 2. Where, after the date notified under S. 83, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or any land exempt under S. 81 from the provisions of this Chapter is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area, shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date. " Dilating on this aspect, he submitted that the family, in the circumstances, must be deemed to have acquired these lands by adopting a mode of acquisition, otherwise than the mode of acquisition prescribed under the Section. I am not impressed by this argument. THE word "otherwise" occurs in association with the words 'gift, purchase transfer inter vivos etc and hence takes colour from them. THE meaning of the more general, going by the well recognised canon of construction, is restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general. Of course there are instances where a different note is struck. For instance if the particular words exhaust the whole genus, then the general word is construed as embracing a larger genus. Is that the case here? No Because acquisition by succession is always possible. 'otherwise' in the context therefore qualifies acquisition by succession. That the expression, 'otherwise' shall not be given a wider meaning is the intention of the Legislature, is clear from the explanations added to the Section by S. 13 of KLR (Amendment)Act, 1979. THEse explanations by a deeming provision, have treated certain lands which underwent changes after 1-1-1970 (regarding classifications etc), as lands acquired by the person against whom proceedings under S. 87 are initiated. If the expression 'otherwise' is given the meaning suggested by the learned Government Pleader, these explanations will become redundant. THErefore, it is clear that the intention of the legislature is not to give the expression'otherwise* a meaning wider than the meaning attributable to the expressions that precede the said expression in the section. If that be so, the above argument of the learned counsel is liable to be rejected.