Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KERALAversusK. MOIDEENKUTTY AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 360
- Decided
- 11 March 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The view of the High Court and the Taluk Land Board was illegal; failure to take possession does not ipso facto make land private forest, and the orders are set aside.
Summary
The State of Kerala appealed against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kozhikode, which had first declared that declarant K. Moideenkutty possessed 3,171.53 acres of excess land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Board later reopened the case and, on the basis that 877 tenants occupied 1,726.90 acres and that 1,444.63 acres remained private forest because the settlement officer had not taken possession, held that Moideenkutty was not in excess of land. The High Court upheld this second order. The Supreme Court held that the Board’s reasoning was illegal, observing that failure to take possession does not automatically render land private forest and that the Board had not examined the factual details of tenants’ occupation. Consequently, the orders of the High Court and the Taluk Land Board were set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh determination. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Taluk Land Board could set aside its earlier order and declare land as private forest solely because the settlement officer had not taken possession.
- Whether failure to take possession of excess land ipso facto makes the land private forest under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961.
- Whether the High Court erred in not examining the factual details concerning the tenants’ occupation and the status of the land.
Subjects
Kerala Land Reforms Actexcess landprivate forestTaluk Land Boardrevisionspecial leavepossessiontenantsland reform
Judgment
A STATE OF KERALA
v.
K. MOIDEENKUTTY AND ORS.
MARCH 11, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY A1'D G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1961 :
Taluk Land Board-Power to review order passed by ii-Order passed
C declaring respondent to be in possession of excess land-Order attaining
finali~Second order passed by Taluk Board holding that part of land was
in occupation of tenants and remaining land was private forest land and
therefore declarant was not in possession of excess land-Part of land held
private forest on the ground that Settlement Officer had not taken possession
of the /and-Second order upheld in revision by High Court-Appeal-Held
D view taken by Court was not sustainable-High Court ignored the issue that
Taluk Board has not considered the relevant factual matters-Ta/uk Board
was wrong in going behind first order and stating in second order that •
declarant was not in possession of excess land-Failure to take possession of
excess land is one facet and declaration of said land as private forest is
E another-Failure to take possession of land does not ipso facto establish that
lands are private forest lands-Orders of High Court and Taluk Board set
aside-Matter remitted for fresh examination.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4737 of
1996. .•
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.92 of the Kcrala High
Court in C.R.P. No. 1399 of 1987.
M.T. Geogre for the Appellant.
G K. Sukumaran and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
H Leave granted.
224
STATEv. K. MOIDEENKUTTY 225
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court A
Y of Kerala at Ernakulam made on October 27, 1992 in CRP No. 1399/87.
The admitted facts are that K. Moideenkutty, the declarant under the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961 was found to be in possession of 3171.53
acres of excess land in Thiruvampadi village. This finding came to be
recorded by the Taluk Land Board, Kozhikode in its order dated March B
29, 1985 under the Act. That order became final. Subsequently, the Taluk
Land Board reopened the matter and by order dated August 5, 1986 found
that the 877 tenants were in occupation of an extent of 1726.90 acres of
land and that 1444.63 acres was a private forest. Consequently, K.
Moideenkutty was not in excess of the land. That order dated August 8,
1986 came to be challenged in the revision. The learned single Judge C
dismissed the revision upholding the order of the second order passed by
the Taluk Land Board. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
We think that the view of the High Court is wholly illegal and cannot
be sustained. From the order of the Taluk Land Board it is not clear as to D
what extent of the lands was in possession of each tenant and whether it
was prior to the Act came into force or was any purchase certificatie given
to them etc. All the details were kept delightfully vague by the Taluk Land
Board. The High Court had not looked at this aspect of the matter and
chose to confirm the order. Further 1444.63 acres of said land were found
to be private forest with the finding that the settlement officer had not E
taken possession of the land. This finding also is wholly illegal. It was open
to the declarant K. Moideenkutty to challenge the original order passed by
the Taluk Land Board on March 29, 1985 declaring that he was in excess
of the land; but he did not challenge the order. Was it right for the Taluk
Land Board to go behind that order and declare that the declarant was F
not in excess of the land for the reason that possession of the land
admeasuring 1444.63 acres was not taken and so it is of private forest.
Failure to take possession of excess land is one facet and dedaration of
the said land as private forest is another. Failure to take possession of the
land does not ipso facto establish that the lands are private forest lands. It
was open to the owner to challenge it but was not done. Unfortunately, the G
High Court also had not gone into this aspeCt nor examined that aspect
from· the purview of the Land Reforms Act. The orders of the High Court
and the Taluk Land Board are set aside. The matter is remitted to the High
Court to the extent of land covered by the land said to be in possession of
877 tenants. The High Court is requested to call upon Taluk Land Board H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R.
A lo issue notice to all the so-called tenants and the appellant and after giving
reasonable opportunity to them determine as to who are said to be tenants •
in possession of the land and to what extent and when they came into
possession etc. The Taluk Land Board should give opportunity to the
appellant to rebut the evidence adduced by the so-called tenants and
B transmit the recorded facts to High Court. The High Court would there-
after examine the matter afresh and then decide the question according to
law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Mr. K. Sukumaran, the
learned senior counsel has stated that his clients have been given purchase
C certificate by the Taluk Land Board. It would be open to them to place
the same before the High Court and the High Court is requested to dispose
of it according to law.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Kerala Land Reforms Act"Sign in to search