VASUDEVAN Vs. MADHAVAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act challenging the legality of the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam in L R. A. S.1698 of 1972 on its file, whereby an order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam dismissing O. A. No. 759 of 1971 filed by the petitioner and some others seeking resumption of one half of a holding from the possession of the 1st respondent herein was confirmed. The landlord in respect of the property was one Sankaran Ankan. He had leased the property to the predecessor in interest of the 1st respondent in 1083 M. E. fixing a pattom of 16 paras of paddy. Sankaran Ankan died in or about the year 1963. The application before the Land Tribunal was filed by the widow and children of Sankaran Ankan, who together constituted all the legal heirs of the deceased. The revision petitioner herein was the 1st applicant before the Land Tribunal and the other heirs were applicants Nos. 2 to 8. The properties jointly owned by the applicants did not exceed in extent the limit specified in S.2(52) of the Act, wherein the expression "small holder" is defined. But the Land Tribunal held that the applicants were disqualified for claiming resumption for the reason that some of them individually owned small items of other lands and if the total extent of those lands held by them individually is added on to the properties jointly owned by them as heirs of Sankaran Ankan such aggregate would exceed 4 acres in extent. There was no dispute that each one of the applicants considered individually owned only very much less than 4 acres and that the property owned by them in common was also less than the said limit. However, the view of the Land Tribunal was that the eligibility of the applicants for claiming the relief of resumption had to be determined by taking into account not merely the property jointly owned by the applicants, but also the other items that are owned by them severally in their own individual right. This view of the Land Tribunal was concurred in by the Appellate Authority in the order that is now sought to be revised.

(2.) The expression "small holder" is defined in clause (52) of S.2 in these terms:

(3.) The landlord in respect of the holding in the present case at the time of filing the application was the body of individuals consisting of all the applicants. That body admittedly owned only an extent of 3 acres 72 cents and it was therefore entitled to be regarded as a 'small holder' for the purposes of the Act. It is also not denied that each one of the applicants taken individually also satisfied the definition of 'small holder', though that fact is not strictly relevant in law when the application is made by the entire group or body consisting of all the heirs of a deceased person in whom the landlord's interest has become jointly vested. For the purposes of eligibility for the grant of relief of resumption under S.17 the preliminary question to be determined is whether the applicant is a small holder. Going by the definition of the expression "small holder", it is only a 'landlord' who can fall within the scope of the definition subject to his satisfying the conditions mentioned therein. The landlord in this case being the entire group or body of persons consisting of all the heirs of deceased Sankaran Ankan what has to be seen is whether that group had at the relevant time in its possession as owner or as cultivating tenant or partly as owner and partly as cultivating tenant, land exceeding 2 1/2 standard acres or 4 acres in extent. In this reckoning only the lands owned or possessed by the group and in respect of which there is community or jointness of interest are to be taken note of. The properties that may be individually owned or possessed by the different members of the group over which there is no commonness of interest cannot be regarded as properties possessed or owned by the landlord, namely the group or body consisting of all the heirs of the deceased Sankaran Ankan. The view taken by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority that even the small extents of properties separately owned by some of the individual applicants, in respect of which the other applicants have no right or interest whatever, are to be included in calculating the extent owned or possessed by the applicants as a group for the purpose of determining whether the applicants can claim the status of a small holder is therefore clearly erroneous.