RAVEENDRANATH V R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks a declaration that S.3(1)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the "KLR Act" is void and inoperative, being unconstitutional.

(2.) The petitioners claim that on the basis of occupation that resulted in suo motu proceedings, SM 7 of 1984 of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, under S.72C of the KLR Act, they are entitled to fixity, being cultivating tenants. Those statutory proceedings culminated in Ext. P5 order of this Court, in a revision under S.103 of the KLR Act, confirming the finding that the land in dispute is liable to be exempted under S.3(1)(x) of the KLR Act, being a tenancy in respect of site or building attached to a temple. An application for review of that judgment was also dismissed. The conclusion arrived at in those proceedings is that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the proviso of S.3(1)(x) on the strength of Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1963 (Act 7 of 1963) hereinafter referred to as the "Kudikidappukars Act". This Court did not therefore find it possible to apply the ratio of the decision in Gopalan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1988 KHC 259 : 1988 (1) KLT SN 6 : 1988 (1) KLJ 93 which was rightly noticed to be a case governed by the Malabar Tenancy Act.

(3.) This writ petition is filed, in the wake of the aforesaid view of this Court; essentially seeking a declaration that the proviso to S.3(1)(x) of the Act, as it now stands, results in hostile discrimination between tenants, who were entitled to fixity under certain prior statutes, and those who did not get any such benefit. It is in this context that the petitioners also seek a declaration that the tenants in Malabar and Travancore area are similarly situated and hence cannot be singled out. A further declaration that S.3(1)(x) of the KLR Act cannot be invoked or applied as against tenants, who were in possession for more than 75 years, is also sought for.