RAJAGOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question that falls to be considered in these revisions is whether a person who files a ceiling statement and who is ordered under S.85(5) of the Land Reforms Act to surrender surplus land, as the petitioners were, is competent to seek to reopen the order under S.85(8) of the Act. The two petitioners made such unsuccessful applications, the petitioner in CRP. 4721 on the allegation that he did not receive notice of the proceedings and therefore could not put forward his defence and the petitioner in CRP. 5367 on the allegation that he could not produce all his evidence before the order for surrender was made.

(2.) S.85(1) lays down that a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area, shall surrender such excess land and sub-s.(2) requires him to file a statement before the Land Board of all his lands (including lands exempted under S.81) with the details prescribed and indicating the lands proposed to be surrendered. Sub-s.2A sets out the persons who are to file the statements in the case of adult unmarried person, in the case of persons under disability, in the case of a family and in the case of any other person. Sub-s.(5) authorises the Land Board to transfer the statements to the Taluk Land Boards and it then proceeds to empower the latter (a) to cause the particulars in the statement to be verified, (b) to "ascertain whether the person to whom the statement relates owns or holds any other lands"; and (c) "by order, (to) determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered." Sub-s.(6) deals with the determination of the identity of the land in terms of the choice indicated in the statement and with the grounds on which the Taluk Land Board could refuse to accept the choice. The proviso which follows lays down that "where in such determination, the interests of other persons are also likely to be affected, the Taluk Land Board shall, except in cases where all the persons interested have agreed to the choice indicated, afford an opportunity to such other persons to be heard and pass suitable orders regarding the land to be surrendered." Sub-s.(7) empowers the Taluk Land Board, where default is made in the submission of statements, to make necessary enquiries and determine the extent and other particulars of the land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered. The proviso to the sub-section enacts that before such determination the Taluk Land Board shall give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land, to be heard. Sub-s.(8) on which the question primarily turns runs as follows:

(3.) On the terms of the sub-section, it is obvious that it draws a distinction between the person who is to surrender excess land on the determination of the Taluk Land Board and the person interested who has not been heard by the Taluk Land Board. The expression "such person" connotes the latter person and the right of making the application is conferred upon him and not upon the person whose excess land has been determined. The person who has been ordered to surrender excess land can only mean the person who had submitted the return or on whose behalf it was submitted or to whom the statement related, as is obvious from sub-s.(2), (2A), (3), (3A), (5) and (6). When the words "Where the Land Board determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by any person" in sub-s.(8) are real in juxtaposition with the words "where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S.83, such excess land shall be surrendered as hereinafter provided" in sub-s.(1) it is obvious that the obligation to file statement is laid only on persons holding beyond the ceiling (or on others on his behalf as specified) and it is they who have to surrender excess land and that sub-s.(8) draws a distinction between them and persons who are merely interested in the lands. It is also significant to note that the different provisions of S.85 make separate references to persons owning or holding excess land and to various other persons who would be merely affected by the proceedings vide proviso to sub-s.(1), explanations I to IV to sub-s.(2), proviso to clauses A to C in sub-s.(6) and proviso to sub-s.(7). The categories might not be exhaustive but persons tailing within these provisions would be those interested who could invoke the remedy under sub-s.(8).