CRPHUKKUDIYIL JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is filed after obtaining leave by persons who were not made parties in the Taluk Land proceedings, which is impugned in this revision.

(2.) Petitioners claim to be assignees of excess land surrendered pursuant to resumption of such extent of land held by the declarant in TLB 1091/73. Original declarant was one A. Govindan Nambiar. The party respondents herein are his legal representatives. The Taluk Land Board by its order dated 21/8/1976 found that the original declarant held an extent of 3.60 acres of land in excess. The said extent was surrendered by the declarant on 2l76/10/1976 out of the land comprised in R.S. 187/1 and 181/1 of Thavinhal Village. In the proceedings the declarant had contended that the above said extent is liable to be exempted, since the said land was given by way of gift in favour of his daughter on 17/10/1973 as per registered document No. 2552/73. However, the Taluk Land Board rejected the said contention, since the transfer was invalid for the purpose of ceiling proceedings as it stood then. Subsequently, Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was amended with effect from 7/7/1979 by Act 27 of 1979.

(3.) The learned Counsel, Sri V.V.Asokan, appearing on behalf of the party respondents submits that since this Court has already held that one of the grounds on which earlier application was rejected, namely, assignment was already taken in this case, cannot stand in the way of the application being allowed, that ground has been set aside by this Court in the earlier proceedings and what remains is only the period of limitation which was already allowed by this Court and therefore there may not be any further objection on the part of the petitioners. I am not able to accept this contention. Admittedly when the petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings, they have got a right of being heard in the matter. The question as to whether the party respondents are entitled to the benefit of the said section as introduced by the amended Act itself is a mooted question to be decided, after hearing the affected parties. In this connection it has to be noticed that even according to the petitioners, the original assignment after surrendering by the declarant was made by order dated 31/1/1977 of the District Collector, Kannur. An extent of 1 acre was assigned to Thazheveettil Panippura Venu, another 1 acre was assigned to Thazhevettil Panippura Karappan, 0.98 acre was assigned to Thazheveettil Panippura Veeran and 0.62 acre was assigned to Nottammal Panippura Makka. Karappan and Veeran remitted the first instalment of the purchase price on 14/3/1977 and 23/3/1977; but Venu and Makka did not remit any amount towards the purchase price and the order of assignment in their favour was cancelled and the assignment now claimed by the petitioners is based on the orders subsequently passed by the District Collector on 14/12/1981. According to him, subsequent to the cancellation of the earlier assignment as a result of the default committed by those assignees, who did not remit the 1st instalment, re-assignment was made by the District Collector by subsequent orders. Admittedly, four assignments were made prior to the introduction of Section 84(1A) of the Amended Act. So however two of them admittedly paid the 1st instalment. As per the proviso to Section 84(1A) the provisions contained in IA will not apply in respect of any land which has been assigned on registry under Section 96, before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979. There is an explanation therein as per which for the purpose of Clause (b), a land shall be deemed to have been assigned on registry if the purchase price payable for the assignment of that land or the first instalment thereof has been deposited as required by the rules made under this Act.