N PARAMESWARA PILLAI Vs. KUNCHALI LEKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question of law that has been referred to the Full Bench for consideration is the period of limitation within which an application for resumption has to be filed under S.17 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), by a small holder for resumption of a portion not exceeding one half of the holding from deemed tenants under S.4A of the said Act, introduced by Act 35 of 1969.

(2.) The facts leading to the above C.R.P. and the circumstances in which the matter was referred to the Full Bench, are as follows: The petitioners filed O.S. No. 1032 of 1966 for redemption of a mortgage. While the matter was pending Act 35 of 1969 came into force which inserted S.4A. As per this Section, certain mortgagees and lessees of mortgagees were treated as deemed tenants. It is not in dispute that Respondents 1 to 5 are deemed tenants under S.4A of the Act. It was so held in O. S. No. 1032/1966 and the decree of the Munsiff's Court became final. Thereafter the petitioners filed O. A. No. 1 of 1977 before the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum, under S.17 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for resumption of one half of the property of an extent of 1 acre 50 cents comprised in Sy. No. 237 of Ulloor Village, Trivandrum, from respondents 1 to 6 on the ground that the petitioners are small-holders and are entitled to resume one half of the property from Respondents 1 to 6 who were held to be deemed tenants, as defined in S.4A of the Act. This application was filed long after the expiry of six months from the commencement of Act 35/1969. It was resisted by Respondents I to 6 contending that the application was time-barred. The Land Tribunal following the decision of Janaki Amma J. in Raghavan Nair v. Narayana Panicker ( 1976 KLT 369 ) held that there is no bar of limitation for filing application by a small-holder for resumption of one half of the holding from deemed tenants and that therefore the petitioners are entitled to resumption of one half of the petition-schedule property, namely 75 cents. He also issued a commission to ascertain the value of improvements and for division of property. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 6 filed A.A. No. 828 of 1978 before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Alleppey. Before the Appellate Authority also it was contended by Respondents 1 to 6 herein that the application for resumption is barred by limitation. The Appellate Authority found that the prescribed period of limitation for filing the application for resumption in respect of cases covered by the Amendment Act 35/1969 is six months from the commencement of the said Act. In reaching this conclusion, the Appellate Authority followed the decision in Kunhamina Umma v. Krishnan (ILR 1978 (2) Kerala 371) which took the view that the time prescribed for filing the application for resumption in respect of tenancy created by the Amendment Act 35/1969 is six months from the commencement of the Amendment Act. Therefore the Appellate Authority held that the application filed by the petitioners for resumption after the expiry of the aforesaid period is time-barred and in this view of the matter, the order of the Land Tribunal granting resumption was reversed and the application was dismissed. It is against the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the petitioners have filed this CRP.

(3.) When the CRP. came up for hearing before Sreedharan J.; the learned Judge referred the matter to be considered by a Division Bench on the ground that conflicting views have been expressed regarding time-limit for filing an application for resumption of lands from deemed tenants under S.4A of the KLR. Act. Consequently the matter was posted before a Division Bench which took the view that the matter required consideration by a larger Bench, in view of the apparent conflict between three Division Bench decisions of this Court on this point. It is thus the matter came up before us.