UMADEVI Vs. SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this civil revision petition, which a learned Judge of this Court felt should be decided by a Full Bench, is short and interesting, and involves essentially an interpretation of the Explanation to S.2(52) of the Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964). Counsel for the respondents would claim that the question has been decided in his favour by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in C. R. P. No. 909 of 1965, by two Full Bench decisions of three Judges each, in C. R. P. No. 898 of 1966 and CRP. 935 of 1966, and by a Full Bench ruling of Five Judges in Sankara Guputan v. Padmanabhan ( 1976 KLT 547 ). We think that none of these decisions deal with the precise controversy raised in this civil revision petition. One of them -- C.R.P. 898 of 1966 - was overruled by 1976 KLT 547.

(2.) The petitioner before us is a tenant against whom the 1st respondent, claiming to be a "small holder" as defined by S.2(52), filed an application fur resumption under S.16A of the Act. S.2(52) of the Act reads:

(3.) The "small holder" enjoys certain special privileges and concessions under the Act. Under S.27 clause (2), as it stood till it was deleted by the amendment Act 35/1969, be was entitled to certain concessional benefits in the matter of claiming fair rent from the tenant; under S.17, he is entitled to resume under certain circumstances and conditions, an extent not exceeding one half of the land in the possession of a tenant; under S.6A, be is entitled under certain circumstances to resume possession of the whole land in occupation of the tenant. The plea of the revision petitioner is that the Paliam Estate was in possession of, and had interest in, land exceeding the limits specified in S.2(52), and had transferred after the 18th December, 1957, although the extent of lands in its possession was not reduced to the said limit or below, by such transfer. Nevertheless, according to the petitioner, the transferee would be disqualified to exercise the rights of a smallholder as provided in the Explanation to S.2(52). For the respondent the argument was that in order to attract the Explanation, two conditions must be satisfied, viz. (1) that the transfer should have been after 18-12-1957 and (2) that it should have the result of reducing the area of the holding to the limit (or below) required to entitle a person to the status of a smallholder. While the petitioner would state that only the first of the conditions had to be satisfied to disqualify the transferee, the respondent would assert that both the conditions should be made out. The Land Tribunal accepted the petitioner's contention and found that the 1st respondent was disqualified to claim the status of a "small holder" and dismissed the application for resumption On appeal, the appellate authority reversed the decision of the Tribunal holding that it is not enough to show that the transfer was made beyond the date indicated in the Explanation, but, in addition, it should have the result of diminishing the extent of the holding to the limit fixed for a 'smallholder', or below the same.