GOVINDA PILLAI Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD PARUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions have been referred to the Division Bench in view of the importance of the question raised. They are directed against the common order of the Taluk Land Board, Parur, on the ceiling return filed by the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 3214 of 1976. The extent of land ceiling of the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, was calculated after including lands held under a usufructuary mortgage dated 29-10-1965 executed in favour of the Petitioner and lands covered by certain sales effected by the petitioner between 1965 and 1970 which were treated as invalid under S.84 of the Act. The calculation was effected as follows: The total extent of lands of the petitioner was 18.55.889 acres. Out of this, 1.57. 500 acres were treated as exempted from the ceiling area under S.81 of the Act. That left a balance of 16.98.389 acres. The land ceiling in respect of the petitioner was 13.85.002 acres. Therefore he was asked to surrender 3.13.387 acres. Among the lands possessed by the petitioner an extent of 4.36.475 acres was possessed under a usufructuary mortgage dated 29th October, 1965. The mortgagor is the petitioner in CRP No. 4405 of 1966 It was the contention of the revision petitioners in both these cases that the mortgaged lands could not be counted for reckoning the ceiling limit, and excluding the same, the balance was 12.62.014 acres. Of this, 3.28.250 acres was sold by the petitioner between 1965 and 1970. The sales were treated as invalid by the Taluk Land Board under S.84 of the Act and the extent sold was added to the area in possession. It was on this basis that the liability of the petitioner to surrender excess land was calculated.

(2.) ARGUMENTS were advanced by Counsel for the petitioner in CRP. No. 3214 of 1976 whom we will describe as the mortgagee. They were supported by Counsel in CRP. No. 4405 of 1976, the petitioner therein being the mortgagor.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General referred to S.83 of the Act, which prohibits the owning, holding or possessing under a mortgage lands in the aggregate, in excess of the ceiling area. This is the basic provision with respect to which the liability to surrender and the extent of lands to be surrendered had to be decided. It is for the purpose of reckoning this ceiling area that transfers are avoided under S.84. After avoiding such transfers and bringing to account the transferred lands, the total extent of land owned or possessed by a person is calculated; and, in the light of the ceiling provisions of the Act, the excess lands are caused to be surrendered and to vest in the Government under S.86 of the Act. It will thus be seen that the provision as to ceiling area, the declaration of unlawfulness of possession or ownership of lands in excess of the ceiling area, the vesting of lands in excess of the same and the liability to surrender lands in excess of the ceiling area, are all part of an integrated scheme under the Land Reforms Act of enforcing the ceiling provisions to determine the extent of lands which a person is lawfully entitled to retain and to enforce the vesting and surrender of the excess lands. It would, in the nature of things, defeat the very object of these provisions and of the Act, if the possession of a mortgagee were to be taken into account for the purpose of some of the Sections and left out of account for the purpose of the others We do not think such would have been the intendment or purpose of the Act; and except for compelling reasons, would be reluctant to conclude that a mortgagee's possession is covered by some of the Sections, but not by S.84 or S 85(9). It appears to us that the context requires that the definition of the term 'held' given in S.2 clause (59) cannot regulate or govern S.84 or 85 clause (9) of the Act. For the purpose of these sections we think the expression 'hold' must be given a wider meaning and connotation. THE learned Advocate General invited our attention to the meaning of the expression 'to hold' in Budhan Singh by his L. Rs. and Another v. Babi Bux and Another (AIR 1970 SC 1880 Para.6 & 12). THE expression 'hold' in its stymological meaning has a wide import and to achieve the object and purpose of this Act, we think it should be so understood for the purpose of giving effect to the ceiling provisions of the Act. THE learned Advocate General drew our attention to Explanation IV to S.85, clause (2). That explanation speaks of lands in excess of the ceiling area "including lands mortgaged to the Government or to a Cooperative Society etc." THEre is here an indication that lands mortgaged also enter into the computation, despite the definition in Clause.59 of S.2. Provisions to the same or similar effect are to be found in S.87, 88(4) (i) & (ii), S.91, clause (2), and so on. THEse indicate that mortgagee's possession enters into the reckoning for various purposes connected with the enforcement of the ceiling provisions of the Act.