SBT Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 10 cents of land on the ownership of which the respondent rested his claim (a claim that has been allowed by the court below)to be an agriculturist within the definition in S. 2 (a) of Act 31 of 1958 and therefore entitled to bring an application under S. 15 thereof is, on his own showing, in the heart of the Kottayam town. It is contiguous to and virtually forms part of the adjoining plot of land owned by the respondent, 16 cents in extent and in which there are three houses in one of which the respondent resides, the remaining two being let. That 16 cent plot is not claimed to be agricultural land. What, according to the respondent, serves to make the 10 cent plot agricultural land is the accident that he has chosen to describe it as a separate item of property and what we might call the further accident that he has planted three or four coconut plants there and has also grown yam and plantains. It seems to us that the 10 cent plot can only be regarded as appurtenant to the 16 cent plot, the two together forming one unit, in which case according to the decisions in Abdul Kareem v. Ismail Sheriff Sahib, 1958 klj. 786, Abdul Kadar v. Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd. , 1959 KLT. 396, Morris v. Mrs. Veera D'cruz 1959 KLT. 790, and Harihara Iyer v. Bhaskaran 1961 LLT. 366 the entire 26 cents must be regarded as non-agricultural land. Indeed, we would go further and say that even if the 10 cent plot had stood by itself we would still have been prepared to say that it was not agricultural land. Non-agricultural land can be put to agricultural use a kitchen garden would be an example. And vice versa, for example the recovery of clay from paddy land. It is its essential character, not a mere accidental use, that determines whether a land is agricultural land or not. It must, we think be obvious that land in the very heart of a town which (as the respondent's own evidence shows would sell at Rs. 700/-a cent must essentially be building site and what we have called its accidental use to grow vegetables cannot make it agricultural land.

(2.) IN answer to the claim made by the respondent in his application under S. 15 of the Act that he was an agriculturist with in the meaning of the Act, the appellant denied that the respondent was an agriculturist and added that he had been assessed to income-tax during the relevant years. This does not mean that it was conceded that the respondent was an agriculturist within the body of the definition and was ejected therefrom only by the second of the three exclusions thereunder. INdeed, the order Of the court below shows that the question whether the 10 cent plot could be regarded as agricultural land or not was one of the main points in dispute. There is therefore no substance in the argument that the appellant Is precluded by the pleadings from disputing that the 10 cent plot is agricultural land.