CIVIL APPEAL NO
1015 OF 1976 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 31 5 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 161575
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1023 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3 1 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 287976
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2811 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 10 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 108676
CIVIL APPEAL NOS
574 575 OF 1978 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Orders dated 30 3 1976 and 11 10 76 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 1640 and Review Petition No 7376 respectively
844 CIVIL APPEAL NO
40 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 11 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 188076
CIVIL APPEAL NO
143 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2891976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 59976
CIVIL APPEAL NO
1309 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 2 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 419476
CIVIL APPEAL NO
1863 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 26 5 77 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 181576A
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2070 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 1881976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 6876
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2584 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2 9 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 33276 E
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2585 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 12 10 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 82976
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2586 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 12 10 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 726 of 1976
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2587 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20121976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 320976
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2623 OF 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 10 12 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 262675
CIVIL APPEAL NO 290 OF 1978 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3 1 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 1977 of 76 A
CIVIL APPEAL NO
362 OF 1978 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29 7 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 155377 D
845 CIVIL APPEAL NO 882 OF 1978 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29 11 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 457478 G
CIVIL APPEAL NO
227 OF 1978 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 15 3 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 302876 E
CIVIL APPEAL NO
869 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 12 10 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP Nos
635 and 859 of 1976
CIVIL APPEAL NO 870 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 7 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 233377
CIVIL APPEAL NO
871 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27 9 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 12876 B
CIVIL APPEAL NO 872 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 15 10 1976 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 46576
CIVIL APPEAL NOS
873 874 OF 1979 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 4 3 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP Nos
1682 and 170676D
CIVIL APPEAL NO 875 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 2 2 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 38378 A
CIVIL APPEAL NOS
876 877 OF 1979 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 17 3 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP Nos
4977 and 4978 of 1976 A
CIVIL APPEAL NO 878 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20 3 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 4980 of 1976 B
CIVIL APPEAL NO 879 OF 1978 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20 3 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 2177 B
CIVIL APPEAL NO 881 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 26 7 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 209878
846 CIVIL APPEAL NO 883 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2 8 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 220377 G
CIVIL APPEAL NO 884 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 1 9 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 1978 of 78 F
CIVIL APPEAL NO
885 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 17 7 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 14677 C
CIVIL APPEAL NO 886 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 16 8 79 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 235178A
CIVIL APPEAL NO
889 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 23111978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 28 of 77 C
CIVIL APPEAL NO
890 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3 11 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 535876 E
CIVIL APPEAL NO 894 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 12 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 398077E
CIVIL APPEAL NO 895 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2 12 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 254277B
CIVIL APPEAL NO
896 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 31 3 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 326476 F
CIVIL APPEAL NO
897 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 27 5 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 197876 A
CIVIL APPEAL NO 898 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 12 8 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 289877 C
CIVIL APPEAL NO
899 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3 8 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 468676 A
CIVIL APPEAL NO
900 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 8 9 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 394176
847 CIVIL APPEAL NO
901 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 28 2 1977 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 1665 of 1976
CIVIL APPEAL NO
902 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2 3 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 63378 E
CIVIL APPEAL NO
903 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 26 7 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 476276 F
CIVIL APPEAL NO
1019 OF 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 18 10 1978 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 111778 H
CIVIL APPEAL NO
101576 For the Appellants T R G Warriyar and A section Nambiar For the Respondents P A Francis and N Sudhakaran
CIVIL APPEAL NO
172377 For the Appellant K section Ramamurthi T R G Warriyar section Balakrishnan C section A Iyer M K D Namboodari and C K Bharthan
For the Respondents M M Abdul Khader Advocate General Kerala and K M K Nair
For the Intervener K K Venugopal Addl
Genl and K J John
CIVIL APPEAL NO
2811 OF 1977 For the Appellant K N Bhat and V K Verma For the Respondents Dr V A Seiyed Mohammad and K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NOS
574 57578 For the Appellants G B Pai K J John and J B Dadachanji
For the Respondents K T Harindra Nath and V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
4077 For the Appellant M C Bhandare K J John and J B Dadachanji
For the Respondents P A Francis and N Sudhakaran
CIVIL APPEAL NO
14377 For the Appellants T C Raghavan and P K Pillai
For Respondents 1 2 K M K Nair
848 CIVIL APPEAL NO
130977 For the Appellant T C Raghavan and N Sudhakaran For the Respondents K M K Nair
For the Intervener Mathai M Paikeday and N Sudhakaran
CIVIL APPEAL NO
186377 For the Appellant T R G Warriyar and A section Nambiar For the Respondents K R Nambiar and V J Francis CIVIL APPEAL NO
207077 For the Appellant T C Raghavan N Sudhakaran and P K Pillai For the Respondents K M K Nair CIVIL APPEAL NO
258477 For the Appellants T C Raghavan N Sudhakaran and P K Pillai For Respondents 1 3 P A Francis and K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO
258577 For the Appellant M C Bhandare Mrs section Bhandare P Santhalingam A N Karhanis and Miss M Poduval
For the Respondents K M K Nair CIVIL APPEAL NO
258677 For the Appellant P K Pillai
For the Respondents K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO
258777 For the Appellant K T Harindra Nath and N Sudhakaran
For the Repondents V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
262377 For the Appellant T R G Warriyar and A section Nambiar
For the Respondents G Govindan Nair and K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NO
29078 For the Appellants Anant Krishnan section Balakrishnan and M K D Namboodri
For the Respondents 1 3 P Govindan Nair and KMK Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO
36278 For the Appellants K T Harindernath and Mrs section Gopala krishnan
For the Respondents K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO
88278 For the Appellants  T C Raghavan section Balakrishnan C K Bharathan CSA Iyer and M K D Namboodri
For the Respondents P Govindan Nair and K R Nambiar
849 CIVIL APPEAL NO
22778 For the Appellants Dr V A Syed Mohd and K R Nambiar
For the Respondent F section Nariman K Joseph and K J John
For the Intervener Rubber Board K K Venugopal Addl
and K J John
CIVIL APPEAL NO
86979 For the Appellants N Sudhakaran
For the Respondents K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO 87079 For the Appellant N Sudhakaran
For the Respondents K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO 87179 For the Appellant A section Nambiar
For the Respondent K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO
87279 For the Appellant P K Pillai
For the Respondents K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NOS
873 87479 For the Appellant N Sudhakaran
For the Respondents 1 3 V J Francis
For the Respondents 4 5 A section Nambiar
For the Respondent No 6 section B Saharya
CIVIL APPEAL NO
87579 For the Appellants A section Nambiar
For the Respondents V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
87679 For the Appellants T R G Warriyar and A section Nambiar
For the Respondents 1 3 V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
87779 For the Appellant A section Nambiar
For the Respondents 1 3 V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO 87879 For the Appellants A section Nambiar
For the Respondents 1 3 V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
87978 For the Appellants A section Nambiar
For the Respondents 1 2 V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
88179 For the Appellant Saroja Goplakrishnan
For the Respondents 1 3 V J Francis 850 CIVIL APPEAL NO
88379 For the Appellants section Balakrishnan and M K D Namboodri
For the Respondents K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO
88579 For the Appellants A section Nambiar
For the Respondents 1 3 V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
88479 For the Appellant P K Pillai Sr
For the Respondents Mr K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NO
88679 For the Appellant A section Nambiar
For the Respondents V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
88979 For the Appellants section Balakrishnan and M K D Namboodri
For the Respondents K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO 89079 For the Appellants A section Nambiar
For the Respondents V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
89479 For the Appellant N Sudhakaran
For the Respondents K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NO 89579 For the Appellants M C Bhandare section Bhandare Miss M Poduval and J Santhalingam
For the Respondents 1 3 K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NO
89679 For the Appellant N Sudhakaran
For the Respondents V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
89779 For the Appellants P K Pillai
For the Respondents V J Francis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
89879 For the Appellants A section Nambiar
For the Respondents K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NO
89979 For the Appellants section Balakrishnan and M K D Namboodri
For the Respondents K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NO
90079 For the Appellant section Balakrishnan and M K D Namboodri
For the Respondents 1 3 K R Nambiar
851 CIVIL APPEAL NO
90179 For the Appellant P K Pillai
For the Respondents K M K Nair
CIVIL APPEAL NO
90279 For the Appellant section Balakrishnan and M K D Namboodri
For the Respondents K R Nambiar
CIVIL APPEAL NO
90379 For the Appellant section B Saharya
For the Respondents V J Frnacis
CIVIL APPEAL NO
101979 For the Appellant T T Kunhikannan
For the Respondents V J Francis
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J
The learned counsel for the appellants have categorically stated at the Bar that no question relating to the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 Act 1 of 1964 hereafter referred to as the Act or any of its provisions arises in these appeals by special leave
We have heard them together virtually as companion appeals at the instance of learned counsel for they arise out of several judgments of the High Court of Kerala in matters relating to the implementation of the provisions for the restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area and the disposal of excess land
These are the subject matter of Chapter III of the Act as amended from time to time
It is not necessary to refer to the dates of all judgments of the High Court of Kerala or to all the points of controversy there as learned counsel have been able to channelise their arguments into three main points of controversy which have been argued at length
It is true that all these points do not arise in all the cases before us and some learned counsel have raised additional arguments in the peculiar facts and circumstances of their cases
It will therefore be convenient and proper to deal with the three main points first and to take up the additional points for consideration with reference to the appeals in which they have been raised for our consideration
This it is agreed will be a proper and a fair course to adopt for the disposal of these appeals
It is also agreed by learned counsel that the other appeals in which such additional points have not been raised shall stand decided according to our decision on the three main points
In order to understand the controversy in its proper perspective it may be mentioned that as in the other States in the country the Kerala State legislature felt the necessity of making comprehensive 852 land reforms in the State
The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1960 Act 4 of 1961 was accordingly passed and received the assent of the President on January 21 1961
Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect from February 15 1961
This Court struck down that Act as unconstitutional in its application to the ryotwari lands of Hosdurg and Kasaragod taluka
The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1962 was then passed for the temporary protection of tenants in those taluks
The State High Court declared it null and void in its application to the ryotwari lands of the Malabar area and most of the lands of Travancore area
So the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1963 was passed to provide some protection to tenants
It was an interim legislation
Even so it repealed the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1962 and suspended the operation of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1960
After re examining the requirements in the field of land reforms as a whole the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 was published in State Gazette on September 15 1963
It covered a wide field in the matter of land reforms and inter alia provided for the imposition of a ceiling on holding of lands the surrender of excess lands grant of compensation therefor and the assignment of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order of priority mentioned in the Bill collection of purchase price constitution of Land Tribunals and Land Board etc
The Bill was enacted as the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 Act 1 of 1964 and received the assent of the President on December 31 1963
It was amended extensively and in several material particulars by Act 35 of 1969 and then by Act 25 of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972
There were other amendments also but it is agreed that they do not bear on the controversy before us
The three main points of controversy in these appeals have been formulated by learned counsel for the appellants as follows 1
Whether lands converted into plantations between April 1 1964 and January 1 1970 qualify for exemption under section 811e of the Act
Whether a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under section 72K of the Act is binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act
Whether the validity or invalidity of transfers effected by persons owning or holding lands exceeding the ceiling limit should be determined with reference to the ceiling area in force on the date of the transfer or in accordance with the ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969 whether sub section 3 of section 84 is retrospective in operation
853 We shall examine the three points one by one but before doing so it will advantageous to refer briefly to the substantive provisions of the Act which bear on the appeals before us
It will be recalled that the Act came into existence when the other attempts to make legislative provision for land reforms did not work out satisfactorily for one reason or the other
The Act was therefore enacted by way of a comprehensive legislation to bring about land reforms in the Kerala State
While Chapter I of the Act contains provisions relating inter alia to its commencement and defines some of the important terms and expressions Chapter II contains many provisions for the benefit of tenants and deemed tenants including restoration of lands and fixity of their tenure purchase of landlords  rights by cultivating tenants and rent payable by certain categories of tenants etc
The provisions of the Chapter do not apply to the leases tenancies and transferred lands and transactions mentioned in section 3
We are however primarily concerned with Chapter III under the general rubric Restrictions on ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands
 Section 81 deals with exemptions including plantations
Section 82 prescribes the ceiling area section 83 prohibits the owning or holding or possessing under a mortgage lands in excess of the ceiling area
Section 84 declares what voluntary transfers shall be deemed to be invalid
Subsection 3 of the section has attracted much controversy and we shall deal with it in due course
Section 85 makes it obligatory to surrender the excess land and section 86 vests such excess lands in the State Government free from all encumbrances
Section 87 makes provision for the surrender of excess land obtained by gift purchase or mortgage lease surrender or any other transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise if the total extent of land thereby exceeds the ceiling area
These are the main provisions which bear on the three points which have been raised for our consideration
Point No 1 The question is whether lands converted into plantation between April 1 1964 and January 1 1970 are exempt from the operation of the provisions of Chapter III of the Act in regard to the restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by it
It will be recalled that while section 82 prescribes the ceiling area of the land section 81 states what shall be exempted from its operation
Clause e of sub section 1 of that section thus specifically provides that the provisions of Chapter III shall not be applicable to plantations
That has been so from the inception of the Act and the question therefore is whether those who felt tempted by the exemption in favour of plantations and converted their lands 854 into plantations after the commencement of the Act would get the benefit of the exemption and if so from which date would the conversion be recognised  This has been dealt with in sub section 4 of section 82 of the Act which prescribes the ceiling
It is not in dispute before us that section came into force on April 1 1964
The sub section as originally enacted in Act I of 1964 therefore came into force on that date
It read as follows 824 Where after the commencement of this Act any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified therein the extent of land that may be owned or held by a family or adult unmarried person owning or holding such land at the time of the conversion shall be determined without taking into account such conversion
 Section 82 was however substantially amended by section 66 of the Amending Act of 1969 which inter alia reduced the ceiling area of the land and amended the wordings of sub section 4 also
That section came into force on January 1 1970
It is not necessary to refer to it as the legislature amended sub section 4 of section 82 once again by section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 which by virtue of section 1 of that Act also came into force on January 1 1970 and thereby supplanted from the very inception the amendment which had been brought about by the Amending Act of 1969
The amended sub section which is the subject matter of the point under consideration reads as follows 824 Where after the commencement of this Act any class of land specified in Section II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or into a plantation the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion
 The controversy therefore is whether the restriction of sub section 4 of section 82 came into force from January 1 1970 because section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 was brought into force on that date or whether it came into force on April 1 1964 when section 82 as originally enacted by the Act came into force
As it happens all the three Acts contain provisions about their commencement and it is these which have to be interpreted for the purpose of resolving the dispute
Sub section 3 of section 1 of the Act provides as follows 13
The provisions of this Act except this section which shall come into force at once shall come into force 855 on such date as the Government may by notification in the Gazette appoint Provided that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as reference to the coming into force of that provision
 It therefore provides that i section 1 of the Act shall come into force at once ii the other provisions of the Act shall come into force on such dates as the Government may appoint iii different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act and iv any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision
The Act was published in the Gazette on January 14 1964 and by virtue of section 3 of the Kerala Interpretation and General clauses Act section 1 came into force on that date
Section 82 as has been stated came into force on April 1 1964 and the reference in sub section 4 of that section to the commencement of this Act meant a reference to the coming into force of that provision with effect from April 1 1964
It may be that the first three rules or directions contained in sub section 3 mentioned above were spent on the coming into force of section 1 of the Act or its other provisions on the dates appointed for them but for obvious reasons rule iv continued to hold the field in as much as it laid down the rule of construction that any reference to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that particular provision
It was therefore applicable as a general rule of construction whenever it became necessary to ascertain the date of commencement of a particular provision of the Act other than section 1
It will be recalled that sub section 4 of section 82 as originally incorporated in the Act came into force on April 1 1964
As has been mentioned sub section 4 of section 82 was emended by section 66 of the Amending Act of 1969 which came into force on January 1 1970 but that proved to be fortuitous because it was supplanted by section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 from the same date
The sub section as amended by the Amending Act of 1971 also dealt with the conversion of land into any other class of land after the commencement of this Act but it added the words or into a plantation and provided that such conversion shall not be taken into consideration for determining the extent of land liable to be surrendered
It has been argued that the expression the commencement 856 of this Act refers to January 1 1970 on which date section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 was brought into force and not to April 1 1964 when it was first brought into force as mentioned above
Reference in this connection has been made to sub section 2 of section 1 of the Amending Act of 1971
The argument is however untenable on the plain meaning of the proviso to sub section 3 of section 1 of the Act which clearly states that any reference in any provision of the Act to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision
So when the provision of sub section 4 of section 82 was brought into force on April 1 1964 its amended version would also come into force from that date
And it will be a matter of no consequence that section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 which amended the sub section came into force on January 1 1970
It will be remembered that section 66 of the Amending Act of 1969 which amended section 82 came into force on January 1 1970 and as the legislature decided to amend it once again by section 12 of the Act of 1971 with retrospective effect from the same date January 1 1970 it made a specific provision to that effect in section 1 of the Amending Act of 1971 and left the date of commencement of the Act for purposes of sub section 4 of section 82 to be determined according to the proviso to sub section 3 of section 1 of the Act which as has been stated was a subsisting provision
It would follow that sub section 4 as amended by the Amending Act of 1971 came into force on April 1 1964
It may be that as has been argued by Mr Venugopal the expression commencement of this Act is a term of art
We have interpreted it as it stands without detracting from the value attributed to it by Mr Venugopal
Mr Warriyar has however argued that particular significance attaches to the use of the expression provisions or provision in section 13 of the Act and that the High Court erred in presuming that at all relevant times a provision  which resulted in certain consequences was in force from April 1 1964 onwards
 He has invited our attention to Saidu Muhammed vs Bhanukuitan1 for the contention that the true meaning of provision is a section or series of sections forming a self contained integral whole that section 82 to 85 should be construed as a composite provision dealing with the ceiling area and that the assumption that section 824 alone was brought into force as a distinct provision when section 83 had not been brought into force is not legally sustainable
The Century Dictionary which is an encyclopaedic lexicon of the English language defines provision as follows 857 In law a stipulation a rule provided a distinct clause in an instrument or statute a rule or principle to be referred for guidance as the provisions of law the provisions of the Constitution
 In Words and Phrases Permanent Edition the definition is as follows As applied to legislation the word provision has this well understood meaning Actual expression in language the clothing of legislative ideas in words which can be pointed out on the page and read with the eye
 A provision is therefore a distinct rule or principle of law in a statute which governs the situation covered by it
So an incomplete idea even though stated in the form of a section of a statute cannot be said to be a provision for by its incompleteness it cannot really be said to provide a whole rule or principle for observance by those concerned
A provision of law cannot therefore be said to exist if it is incomplete for then it provides nothing
Examined in this perspective section 82 of the Act as amended by section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 is to say the least a distinct rule or clause for it provides the extent of the ceiling area in the cases mentioned in it sub section 1  its effect on the lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of the family sub section 2  the taking into account of the shares of the members of the family or an adult unmarried person sub section 3 the effect of conversion of any class of land specified in Schedule II into any other class of land specified in the schedule or into a plantation and the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land sub section 4  lands owned by a private trust or a private institution sub section 5  and exemption of lands covered by section 81 sub section 6 
The section is therefore a provision by any standard and it is futile to argue that this is not so merely because the provisions relating to the prohibition on the owning or holding or possessing under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area and the surrender of excess land and its vesting in the State Government have been dealt with in the other sections 83 85 and 86
Sections 83 85 and 86 contain certain other provisions relating to the law of ceiling on land but that cannot detract from the basic fact that section 82 contains a provision in fact an important provision of the law relating to the imposition of ceiling on land dealt with in Chapter III
It may well be said that sub section 4 of section 82 is also a provision of the law by itself for it lays down a dis 858 tinct rule relating to conversion of lands for observance by all concerned
We have gone through Saidu Muhammed vs Bhanukuitan1 but that was quite a different case where the section which authorised the launching of the prosecution of a defaulter was brought into force but not the other provision which prescribed the period of limitation for the prosecution and the High Court was persuaded to take the view that it was the legislative intent that the prosecution should be governed by the limitation prescribed by the other section
In the case before us however the application of section 82 is not dependent on any other section so as to make it an incomplete provision by itself
It deals with ceiling area and is a provision by itself so that it could be brought into force from a date different from section 83 which prohibited the holding of land in excess of the ceiling area
It may be pointed out that the ceiling prescribed by section 82 was material not only for the purpose of Chapter III of the Act but had a direct co relation to some of the provisions of Chapter II eg sections 16 and 53
It has next been argued by Mr Warriyar that in view of the decisions of this Court in State of Kerala and others vs Philomina etc2 and State of Kerala and others vs K A Gangadharan3 the High Court erred in taking the view that section 824 came into force on April 1 1964 because it has been held in both those cases that determination of the surplus land was to be on the basis of the situation existing on January 1 1970 and that if any land had been converted into a plantation before that date it had necessarily to be exempted from the operation of the ceiling law by virtue of section 81
But they were different cases
Thus State of Kerala vs Philomina supra related to the transfer of Kayal lands between September 15 1963 and January 1 1970
As Chapter III of the Act was not applicable to those lands because of the exemption under section 81 and as that exemption continued until January 1 1970 when section 65 of the Amending Act of 1969 came into force it was held by this Court that as the exemption was not withdrawn until January 1 1970 the transfers made between September 15 1963 and January 1 1970 were valid under the provisions of the Act
The decision in that case thus turned on the meaning of section 83 and 85
That view was noticed by this Court in State of Kerala and others vs K A Gangadharan supra and it was held that the dominant legislative intent was the imposition of the ceiling on lands and the consequential obligation to 859 surrender lands owned or held in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date namely January 1 1970
The gifts of excess land made on March 28 1974 were therefore ignored
That was also therefore a different case and cannot avail the appellants
The view taken by the High Court in Ramunni Nair vs State of Kerala1 in regard to the meaning to be attached to the words the commencement of this Act is thus substantially correct and does not call for interference by us
It may be mentioned that learned Advocate General has pointed out that in the Act as it stands amended at present the expression commencement of this Act refers to the commencement of the Act and while referring to the commencement of the Amending
Act of 1969 the words used are commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 and that the Amending Act of 1971 has also been referred to as such
It is therefore futile to contend that the rule of interpretation mentioned in sub section 3 of section 1 that any reference in a provision of the Act to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision shall not be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision as originally enacted
Mr Balakrishnan tried to raise the argument that a landholder is in any event entitled to the benefit of the exemption under section 81 as amended by the Act of 1969 in respect of the extent of plantation within the ceiling area even if it were converted into a plantation during the period April 1 1964 to December 31 1969
The argument is untenable because while sub section 1 of section 81 provides that the provisions of Chapter III shall not apply to the lands and plantations mentioned in it that is overridden by and is subject to the requirement of sub section 4 of section 82
Point No 1 is decided against the appellants
Point No 2 The question is whether a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under section 72K of the Act is binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act
The provisions relating to the purchase of the landlord s rights by cultivating tenants appear under that heading and are contained in sections 53 to 74 of the Act
The Tribunal is competent to pass orders on the application for purchase including the determination of the compensation and the purchase price under section 72F
Section 72K 860 provides for the issue of the certificate of purchase sub section 2 of that section reads as follows 2 The certificate of purchase issued under sub section 1 shall be conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries if any over the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates
 The real question for consideration therefore is whether the certificate is binding on the Taluk Land Board for the purpose of taking a decision in regard to the ceiling area under sub section 5 of section 85
It may be mentioned in this connection that while the Land Tribunal deals with most of the matters relating to tenants and is constituted under section 99 the Taluk Land Board is constituted under section 100A and deals with statements filed under sub section 2 of section 85 by persons owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area
Sub section 5 of section 85 provides further that the Taluk Land Board shall a cause the particulars mentioned in the statement to be verified b ascertain whether the person to whom the statement relates owns or holds any other lands and c by order determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered
A reading of sub section 1 of section 85 shows that the question for examination is not that relating to the existence of the tenancy rights of the person who files the statement but that relating to the bona fides of his belief that the land sought to be excluded by him is liable to be purchased by a cultivating tenant
The Land Tribunal and the Taluk Land Board thus operate in their respective fields and serve the purpose of the Act
Now the certificate of purchase which the Land Tribunal issues in the prescribed form evidences the assignment of the assigned land to the purchaser
Sub section 2 of section 72K of the Act mentioned above merely declares that the certificate shall be conclusive proof of that assignment  of the right title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries if any to the tenant in respect of the holding concerned or portion thereof
There is nothing in the sub section which could be said to declare that the finding recorded 861 by the Tribunal in those proceedings would be conclusive proof of any other matter which it may determine so as to bind the Taluk and Board or any other authority
Sub section 2 of section 72K therefore does not in terms or in substance impinge on the authority of the Taluk Land Board to discharge its own functions under section 855 of the Act
The Board is thus quite free to cause the particulars mentioned in the statement filed under sub section 2 of section 85 to be verified and to ascertain whether the person filing the statement owns or holds any other land and to determine the extent as well as the identity of the excess land which he is required to surrender
If a certificate of purchase is issued by the Land Tribunal to any such person and he tenders it in proceedings before the Taluk Land Board the Board is required by law to treat it as conclusive proof of the fact that the right title and interest of the land owner and intermediary over the land mentioned in it has been assigned to him
It is however not the requirement of the law that the certificate of purchase shall be conclusive proof of the surplus or other land held by its holder so as to foreclose the decision of the Taluk Land Board under sub section 5 of section 85
Mr Warriyar is not justified in arguing that the Taluk Land Board has power only to determine the identity of the surplus land leaving every other matter to the Land Tribunal
The argument loses sight of requirement of sub section 5 of section 85 that the Board shall inter alia by order determine not only the identity of the land to be surrendered but also its extent
It would thus appear that even though the certificate of purchase issued under sub section 1 of section 72K is conclusive proof of the assignment of the right title and interest of the landowner in favour of the holder in respect of the holding concerned under sub section 2 that only means that no contrary evidence shall be effective to displace it unless the so called conclusive effective is inaccurate on its face or fraud can be shown Halsbury s Laws of England fourth edition vol
17 page 22 paragraph 28
It may be stated that inaccuracy on the face of the certificate is not as wide in its connotation as an error apparent on the face of the record
It will not therefore be permissible for the Board to disregard the evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase merely on the ground that it has not been issued on a proper appreciation or consideration of the evidence on record or that the Tribunal s finding suffers from any procedural error
What sub section 2 of section 72K provides is an irrebutable presumption of law and it may well be regarded as a rule 862 of substantive law
But even so for reasons already stated it does not thereby take away the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board to make an order under section 855 after taking into consideration the conclusive evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase according to section 72K 2 as far as it goes
We are therefore of the opinion that the view taken in Kunjanujan Thampuran and others vs Taluk Land Board1 is not quite correct
While the High Court was justified in taking the view that the scope of the enquiry in the Taluk Land Board is that relating to the surplus land with which the Land Tribunal is not concerned the certificate of purchase has its own conclusive evedentiary value to the extent provided in section 72K 2 in proceedings before the Taluk Land Board
It will therefore be for the Board to arrive at its own decision under sub section 5 of section 85 according to the law and it will be permissible for it to examine where necessary whether the certificate is inaccurate on its face or has been obtained by fraud or collusion
Point No 2 is decided accordingly
Mr Bhandare tried to raise an ancillary argument in CA No 2585 of 1977 that if on the date on which the Taluk Land Board undertakes an enquiry for the determination of surplus land a proceeding is pending before the Land Tribunal for the grant of a certificate of purchase the Board will have no jurisdiction to examine a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
We find however that no such question was raised for the consideration of the High Court where the controversy was confined to the genuineness of the lease and we are therefore not required to examine the abstract point of law set out by Mr Bhandare
It will be sufficient for us to say that the ancillary argument can easily be answered in the light of our decision on point No 2 if and when it arises for consideration in a given case for the function of the Board is to determine the extent and the identity of the Land to be surrendered and not matters relating to the issue of a certificate of purchase
If a certificate of purchase has a bearing on what the Board is called upon to decide we have no doubt that the Board will take it into consideration if it is produced for its consideration with due regard to the evidentiary value assigned to it under section 72K 2 in the light of our decision on point No 2
Point No 3 Some of the persons who owned or held lands exceeding the ceiling prescribed by the Act had voluntarily transferred some of their lands after the publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the 863 State Gazette on September 15 1963
Section 84 of the Act therefore provides that except for the transfers mentioned in the section the transfers so made shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid
The section has thus been linked with section 82 which specifies the ceiling area
As has been stated the ceiling area was considerably reduced by the amendment which was made in section 82 by the Amending Act of 1969
That Act amended section 84 also with effect from January 1 1970
It was again amended by Act 17 of 1972 hereafter referred to as the Amending Act of 1972 with effect from November 2 1972 when that Act came into force
It inter alia inserted sub section 3 in section 84 as follows 3 For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that the expression ceiling area in sub sections 1 and 2 means the ceiling area specified in sub section 1 of section 82 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 35 of 1969
 The question therefore is whether the validity of the voluntary transfer is to be determined with reference to the ceiling area in force on the date of transfer or the reduced ceiling area prescribed by the Amending Act of 1969
As has been stated sub section 3 of section 84 was inserted on November 2 1972 and the point for determination is whether it was retrospective or retroactive in operation so as to govern the transfers effected after September 15 1963 date of publication of the Bill of 1963 even though the original section 84 read with the original section 82 invalidated only those transfers which were in excess of the higher ceiling prescribed by the original section 82
Section 84 follows section 82 which it will be recalled prescribes the ceiling area and section 83 which prohibits the owning or holding or possession under a mortgage land in excess of the ceiling area
As has been observed by this Court in Gangadharan s case section 84 has been enacted with a view to making the provisions of section 83 and 85 effective
It makes references to ceiling area in sub sections 1 and 2 and sub section 3 states what exactly is meant thereby
The sub section clarifies that the expression ceiling area in sub sections 1 and 2 of section 84 means the area specified in sub section 1 of section 82 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 35 of 1969
As has been mentioned that amendment was made by section 66 which came into force on January 1 1970
It is true that section 15 of the Amending Act of 1972 which inserted sub section 3 in section 84 of the Act does 864 not state that it has been made with retrospective effect and sub section 3 does not in terms state that it shall be deemed to have come into force from the date of the amendment which was made by the Amending Act of 1969
Even so it is necessary to examine the true effect of the insertion of the sub section and to decide whether it is retroactive
In doing so we shall be guided by the plain and clear language of the sub section that is the primary rule of construction for the legislature is intended to mean what it has expressed
We shall also bear in mind the other equally important rule of interpretation that a statute is not to be read retrospectively except for necessity
Section 84 has been enacted for the purpose of making certain voluntary transfers invalid on the ground that they are deemed to be calculated to defeat the provision of the law relating to imposition of ceiling on land
It is therefore co related to section 82 which fixed the ceiling and if the Legislature decided that the ceiling should be reduced it is natural that the deeming provision of section 84 should attach to transfers in excess of the reduced ceiling because the crucial date of invalidation has been stated in section 84 right from the inception of the Act to be September 15 1963 irrespective of the law relating to the ceiling
It will be remembered that the Act had not even come into force on September 15 1963 but it all the same invalidated the transfers made after that date in excess of the ceiling it prescribed
So as long as September 15 1963 continues to remain the date with reference to which the transfers are to be invalidated the variation in the extent of the ceiling has necessarily to work back to that date
The legislature therefore inserted sub section 3 in section 84 to clarify that the expression ceiling area in the earlier sub sections would mean the ceiling area specified in section 821 as amended by the Amending Act of 1969 ie the reduced ceiling
In taking this view we have only taken into consideration the plain and clear wordings of the sub section and if in doing so it so happens that sub section 3 becomes retroactive in operation we must hold that it is so
Any other view of the meaning and effect of sub section 3 will amount to disregarding what the legislature has expressed and reading more in the law than what it provides
It has to be appreciated that from the inception the Act forward on voluntary transfers effected after September 15 1963 for the obvious reason that the Bill was published on that date in the State Gazette and those concerned know that they would be required to surrender the excess lands
It is not surprising that voluntary transfers of land should have been made to get over that eventuality
865 Section 84 therefore provided from the very beginning that such transfers shall be deemed to be calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid
When the ceiling fixed by the original section 82 was considerably reduced by the Amending Act of 1969 and when the reduced ceiling was to govern the liability to surrender the excess land it was only natural that provision should have been made to invalidate voluntary transfers effected after September 15 1963 with reference to that reduced ceiling
It has to be appreciated that even those who did not want to defeat the provisions of the Act by voluntary transfers after September 15 1963 and retained the lands themselves were affected by the amendment which was made by the Amending Act of 1969 and were not entitled to claim that this should not be so merely because the Amending Act came into force later
A doubt was however raised about the matter in V N Narayanan Nair and others vs State of Kerala and others1
It was therefore considered necessary to introduce the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Bill 1972 clause 15 of which inter alia provided for the insertion of the following as sub section 3 of section 84 of the Act 3 For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that the expression ceiling area in sub sections 1 and 2 means the ceiling area specified in sub section 1 of section 82 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 35 or 1969
 Notes on clauses were appended to the Bill
In paragraph 10 thereof it was stated as follows There have been some doubts as to the scope of the expression ceiling area as used in the section
It is proposed to provide that the ceiling area referred to in the section is the ceiling area under the principal Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 35 of 1969
 The legislature inserted the sub section without any change
It is true that the intention of the legislature cannot be ascertained from any statement by way of a note on the clauses of a Bill or breviate and as has been stated the duty of the court is to find the natural meaning of the words in a statute in the context in which they are used but it has always been considered permissible and even desirable for a court while interpreting a statute to take note of the history of the statute and the circumstances in which it was passed or 866 the mischief at which it was directed
The reason is that the meaning which is to be given to a statute should be such as will carry out its object
If sub section 3 of section 84 is examined with due regard to all these factors it will appear that as has plainly been stated in it the ceiling area referred to in sub sections 1 and 2 of that section for examining the question of the validity of the transfers made after September 15 1963 is the reduced ceiling area specified by the Amending Act of 1969
In fact as has been stated in the Craies on Statute Law seventh edition at page 395 to explain a former statute the subsequent statute has relation back to the time when the earlier Act was passed
In such a case as the Act is declaratory the presumption against construing it retrospectively so as to respect vested rights is not applicable
As sub section 3 of section 84 in terms clarifies the meaning of the expression ceiling area with reference to which certain voluntary transfers are to be invalidated it is clearly retrospective as it is meant to invalidate the transfers made after September 15 1963 when the Bill of 1963 was published
We are therefore satisfied that the view taken in Narayana Patar vs State of Kerala1 and others in this respect is quite correct and point No 3 is decided accordingly
In the result the appeals in which only points Nos 1 and 3 have been raised for our consideration fail and are dismissed
We shall now examine those appeals in which point No 2 andor additional points have been raised for our consideration
CA No 869 of 1979 Issac Joseph and another vs State of Kerala and others As we have taken a different view on point No 2 and as the purchase certificate came up for consideration in the High Court the appeal is allowed to the extent that the High Court shall re examine the matter in the light of our decision on that point
CA No 876 of 1979 P Kunhukutta Tharakan and others vs State of Kerala and others Mr Warriyar has argued that the High Court has committed an error of law in taking the view that the certificate of purchase was not 867 conclusive proof of the assignment of the right title or interest of the landowner and the intermediaries over the holding
In view of our decision on point No 2 it is necessary that the High Court should re examine the controversy
The appeal is therefore allowed and it is ordered accordingly
C A No 877 of 1979 K Parukutty Ammal vs State of Kerala and others In the view we have taken on point No 2 about the evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase the appeal is allowed and the case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal according to law in that respect
CA No 878 of 1979 K Devaki Amma and others vs State of Kerala and others The view taken by the High Court in regard to the evidentiary value of the purchase certificate is not correct for reasons mentioned by us while dealing with point No 2
The appeal is therefore allowed to this extent and the High Court shall re examine its decision in this respect
CA No 879 of 1979 C section Raman Mannadiar vs State of Kerala and others While examining revision petition No CRP No 498876 C certificates of purchase came up for consideration in the High Court
In view of our decision on point No 2 it will be necessary for the High Court to re examine the matter
The appeal is allowed to this extent and it is ordered accordingly
CA No 2623 of 1977 P Kunhilakshmi Amma vs The Taluk Land Board Talappily and another Mr Warriyar has argued that the appellant is a widow and that the ancestral lands have wrongly been treated as her own lands
We 868 have gone through the judgment of the High Court but no such point was raised for its consideration
It cannot be allowed to be raised now and as no other point has been argued in this Court the appeal fails and is dismissed
CA No 1015 of 1976 Chettiam Vettil Ammad and another vs The Taluk Land Board Badagar and others It has been argued by Mr Warriyar that a child in the womb on January 1 1970 is a member of the family for purposes of section 821 c of the Act and the contrary view taken by the High Court on the basis of its decision in Balakrishna Kurup vs State of Kerala and another1 is incorrect and should be set aside
Clause c of sub section 1 of section 82 of the Act provides that in the case of a family consisting of more than five members the ceiling area of the land shall be ten standard acres increased by one standard acre for each member in excess of five subject to the limit prescribed by the clause
The expression family has been defined in clause 14 of section 2 as follows family  means husband wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist
And the expression minor has been defined by clause 36A to mean a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years
 So two postulates are necessary for obtaining the benefit of the increase of one standard acre for each member of the family in excess of five namely that the member should be in existence and it should be possible to ascertain that he had not attained the age of eighteen years on the appointed date
Both these conditions cannot be said to exist in the case of a child en ventre sa mere and it will not therefore be regarded as a member of the family for purposes of section 82
We are aware that a child en ventre sa mere has been regarded in some legal systems as a person in being for the purpose of acquisition of property by the child itself particularly in regard to gifts but section 82 of the Act with which we are concerned does not deal with any such contingency or benefit to the unborn child
The view taken by the High Court in Balakrishna Karup case is therefore correct and as it has been rightly followed in the appeal before us the appeal has no merit and is dismissed
869 CA No 1863 of 1977 C A Venkatachallam Chettiar vs Taluk Land Board Chittor and another It has been argued by Mr Warriyar that the lands in question should have been treated as joint family property and if that had been done there would have been no excess land for surrender
The claim was advanced on the basis of parol evidence and was rejected by the High Court
It is therefore a finding of fact and does not call for re examination here
The appeal fails and is dismissed
C A No 40 of 1977 E V Paul vs The Taluk Land Board Talappilly and another
It is not disputed that there is a pine apple canning factory on 215 acres and there is a pine apple plantation on the adjoining area of 11 acres
It has been argued that the whole of 1315 acres should have been exempted from the ceiling limit as it was a commercial site within the meaning of section 25 of the Act
But according to that definition commercial site means leaving out the inapplicable portion any land which is used principally for the purposes of any trade commerce industry manufacture or business
 A cross reference to sub section 5 of section 101 shows that such a question has to be decided after taking into account the extent of the amount invested in and the income from the portion so used and the remaining portion and the other relevant matters
It has been held that the 11 acres of land did not fall within this definition and the finding of fact that it is not a commercial site does not call for interference
The appeal fails and is dismissed
CA No 2585 of 1977 P J Vetrivel vs State of Kerala and others We have made a reference to this appeal in connection with the ancillary argument of Mr Bhandare on point No 2
It has been argued further that although 150 acres was given on lease to the other appellant who held a certificate of purchase the High Court ignored the parole evidence and the certificate of purchase
We find however that the High Court did not interfere with the finding of the Taluk Land Board because there was no lease deed and there was absolutely no material to prove that the land was held by the tenants
The two demand bills of the Panchayat dated November 1 1974 could not possibly prove that a lease was in existence before September 15 870 1963
There is nothing on the record to show that a certificate of purchase was produced for the Board s consideration and it is futile to argue that its evidentiary value was ignored by the Board
No such argument was advanced for the consideration of the High Court
The other argument regarding exclusion of 175 acres on the basis of an alleged gift to the appellant s son was not urged for the consideration of the High Court and does not require consideration by us
The appeal is dismissed
CA No 2811 of 1977 Jaya Shree Tea and Industries Ltd vs Taluk Land Board Nedumangad and others Mr Bhatt has argued that the High Court erred in not granting the exemption for the entire area as a coffee plantation but the finding of fact in this respect is against the appellant
The conversion of the land has also been held to be illegal
On the claim that the land used for growing fuel was exempt as it fell within the definition of plantation under section 244 a as it was an ancillary purpose also there is a finding of fact against the Company
The appeal has no merit and is dismissed
CA No 227 of 1978 The Taluk Land Board Peermade and others vs Southern India Tea Estates Co Ltd The controversy before us relates to exclusion of fuel area and rested area The Company has claimed that it has planted red gum as fuel in 92401 acres as it was required for the manufacture of tea The Taluk Board found it to be an exorbitant claim and reduced it to 200 acres but the High Court has restored the entire claim
The General Manager of the Company has stated that fire wood is being supplied to the employees free of cost
So the claim to plant red gum all over is belied by its General Manager s statement
Moreover supply of fuel wood cannot be said to be a purpose ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops
 The Land Board has disallowed the claim for exemption of 13617 acres but it has been allowed in full by the High Court
Here again the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Board s finding of fact for there was nothing to show that it was an area from which crop was not gathered at the relevant time
If that had been so it might have been an area within the plantation
In fact it appears from the order of the Board that no 871 other estate had made any such claim
The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent that the Board s decision is restored in both these matters
CA No 1309 of 1977 V G Kuriakose Vadakkekara House vs The Taluk Land Board and others Mr Raghavan has argued that the Land Board erred in excluding only 25 cents on account of road and 55 cents for the house site and the approach road
These are findings of fact which have not been shown to be vitiated by any error of law or procedure and the High Court has given its reason for refusing to take additional evidence in regard to the alleged dedication of the road
The appeal has no merit and it is dismissed
CA No 2070 of 1977 Subhadra vs The State of Kerala and others The appellant has been called upon to surrender 875 acres of land and the claim to exclude 629 acres on account of a will of 1963 in favour of the grand daughter has been rejected as the will has not been found to be genuine
Mr Raghavan has not been able to show how that finding which is essentially one of fact can be said to require reconsideration when it is admitted that the will has not been probated so far
The appeal is without merit and is dismissed
CA No 143 of 1977 P A Sivasubramaniam vs The State of Kerala and others Mr Raghavan has argued that the High Court has erred in rejecting the contention that as the appellant had two unmarried daughters who had attained majority before January 1 1970 they were entitled to 6 acres each under section 821 of the Act
But the two daughters did not have any share in the property under their personal law and the Act did not give it to them
The High Court cannot be blamed for rejecting the claim and the appeal is dismissed
872 CA No 882 of 1978 Dr T R Chandrasekhar vs The Taluk Land Board and others The High Court has remanded the case in some respects but the grievance here is that although the appellant s unmarried daughter Sheela became a major in 1969 and was given a share in the partition held on December 15 1969 that has not been excluded from the appellant s holding
We find that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove the partition and separate possession of the daughter
The finding of fact is therefore against the appellant and does not call for reconsideration here
The appeal is dismissed
CA No 883 of 1979 Smt
Unneema Antherjanam vs The Taluk Land Board and others The grievance of the appellant is that the Taluk Land Board has revised its earlier order and raised the excess land for surrender from 766 acres to 1109 acres
But that is permissible under section 859 of the Act
The Board has justified the correction with reference to the reports already on the record and it has not been argued before us that they were not read correctly or that that excess land has been incorrectly determined
It may be mentioned that the Collector and the Tahsildars were authorised under section 105A 1 to make the reports which were lost sight of when the first determination of surplus land was made and all that the Board has done is to rectify the mistake
There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed
CA No 362 of 1978 Mammad vs The State of Kerala and others It has been argued by Mr Harindranath that Mammad son of Mohammad Kutty was a major on January 1 1970 and he was wrongly taken to be a minor for the determination of the ceiling area
But we find from the High Court s order dated July 5 1976 that Mohammad Kutty had himself mentioned in the statement which he filed about his holding that his son Mammad was a minor on that date
It is therefore clear that the attempt to show that he was a major on January 1 1970 was an after thought and it has rightly been rejected
The appeal is dismissed
873 CA No 881 of 1979 Kodoth Krishnan Nair vs The Taluk Land Board Kasargod and others Mr Harindranath has argued that the house cattleshed tank well and outhouse should have been exempted
But no such argument was advanced in the High Court and it cannot be agitated here
The other argument that the land which was on lease with C Ouseph should have been allowed to be surrendered is also futile in view of the findings about the alleged lease
The appeal is dismissed
CA No 2587 of 1977 Thomas Kuriyan vs The Tahsildar Taliparamba Taluk and others It has been argued that out of the 30 acres of land which was taken on lease on May 2 1962 from Haji one Palakkat Varkey was in possession of 13 acres which he refused to surrender and that land should have been left out of consideration
It has however been found as a fact that the alleged tenancy of Varkey had not been established and there is nothing wrong if the plea to that effect has been rejected
The appeal is dismissed
CA No 895 of 1979 Kuttikrishnan and another vs The State of Kerala and others We have dealt with the evidentiary value of the purchase certificate while examining point No 2 which has a bearing on this appeal
The appeal is therefore allowed and the case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal in this respect according to the law
CA No 894 of 1979 K Kesava Pillai vs The State of Kerala and another The only argument which has been advanced before us relates to the question whether the finding about unculturable waste land is correct
That is a finding of fact which has not been shown to have been vitiated for any reason
The appeal is dismissed
874 CA No 870 of 1979 Kurian Thomas vs The State of Kerala and others It has been argued by Mr Sudhakaran that although certificates of purchase had been obtained by some of the tenants they were not taken into consideration by the Land Board and the High Court
We find that no such argument was advanced in the Board or before the High Court and as it happens there is nothing to show that even the existence of the certificate of purchase was brought to the notice of the Board or the High Court
All that was urged in the High Court was that out of 30 acres acquired in 1962 the appellant got possession of only 17 acres and that there was a lease of some land in favour of Avirah Joseph in 1962
These were questions of fact which the High Court rightly refused to re examine
There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed
CA Nos 873 and 874 of 1979 Kandu vs The State of Kerala and others The controversy relates to the three gift deeds executed after January 1 1970
The High Court has refused to exclude the gifted lands and in view of this Court s decision in Gangadharan s case supra that decision is correct as transfers made after January 1 1970 have to be ignored even if they are of the excepted variety mentioned in section 84 of the Act
The appeals fail and are dismissed
CA No 875 of 1979 T Devidas and others vs Taluk Land Board Talappilly and others It has been argued by Mr Rammurthy that the High Court erred in upholding the Taluk Land Board s view that the properties received by the deceased Nanikutty Amma under the partition deed of 1117 belonged to her exclusively as the property really belonged to the tavazhi consisting of herself her daughter and the lineal descendants
The High Court has examined the document concerned and held that the properties were private properties of the executants of the document
This is a finding of fact and there is nothing wrong with the view that the property which fell to Nanikutty s share was her own property
There is no merit in the appeal and it dismissed
875 CA No 1019 of 1979 P V Thomas vs The State of Kerala and others
The appellant was directed by the Taluk Land Board to surrender 1893 acres of land
His grievance was that the land in RS No 12 was a private forest until it was converted into rubber plantation
The Board held that the conversion took place after April 1 1964
As in a document of December 12 1963 the land was a private forest the High Court remanded the case for further enquiry
The Board reexamined the evidence and found that there was satisfactory evidence to prove that the land was not a private forest as on April 1 1964
The High Court has upheld that finding after examining the document of 1963
In view of that finding of fact there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed
CA No 890 of 1979 K C Thomas vs The Taluk Land Board Vaikam and others Mr Nambiyar has argued that the High Court erred in upholding the finding of the Taluk Land Board that the land in question was not forest but paramba and its conversion into plantation after April 1 1964 had to be ignored under section 824 of the Act
But that is a finding of fact which has not been shown to have been vitiated and does not call for interference here
The appeal is dismissed
CA No 885 of 1979 K P Mohammad and others vs Taluk Land Board Perinthalmanna and others The Taluk Land Board made its order on November 21 1975 determining the extent of the land to be surrendered by the appellant
He applied to the Board much after the period of 60 days prescribed in sub section 8 of section 85 to have that order set aside
No real attempt was made to explain the delay and the High Court therefore rightly upheld the Board s decision that the application was barred by limitation
The appeal fails and is dismissed
C A No 886 of 1979 P M Kunhammed and another vs Taluk Land Board Qulandy and others The Taluk Land Board s earlier order was set aside by the High Court to the extent mentioned in its order dated November 16 1976 and the Board was directed to dispose of the matter afresh
The Board allowed relief to the extent of 5359 acres by exempting it as rubber 876 plantation
But it disallowed the claim that 341 acres was arecanut garden in a part of the rubber plantation as it was interspersed with in the boundary of the rubber estate because it was found from the report of the authorised officer that this was not so
The High Court has given satisfactory reasons for that view and there is no occasion for us to interfere with that finding
The appeal fails and is dismissed
C A No 903 of 1979 T V Krishnan vs The State of Kerala and others The main controversy was that relating to the date of birth of the daughter of the appellant
The Taluk Land Board has held that she was minor on January 1 1970 and was a member of the appellant s family
That finding has been based on the entries in the school certificate and as a certified copy of the birth register was not produced it cannot be said that the High Court erred in refusing to disturb the Board s finding
The appeal is dismissed
CA Nos 574 575 of 1978 Ravi Karuna Karan vs The Taluk Land Board Quilon and others Special leave in these appeals has been granted limited to the question of urban lands measuring 719 acres
 The Board gave its finding in this matter after making the necessary enquiries and visiting the lands
The High Court has stated in its order dated October 11 1976 on the review petition that the question of non applicability of the Act to non agricultural lands was not urged for its consideration
As it is essentially a question of fact it does not require consideration in this Court
The appeals fail and are dismissed
C A No 2584 of 1977 Smt
Varghese Marium and another vs The Taluk Land Board and others The evidentiary value of the purchase certificate came up for consideration in this case in the High Court
In view of our decision on point No 2 the appeal is allowed and the case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal in this respect according to law
877 C A No 2586 of 1977 P M Kuruvilla vs The State of Kerala and others In view of our decision on point No 2 the appeal is allowed and the case is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal according to the law in so far as the question of exclusion of 2357 acres of land in Trikhadambe village is concerned
In the result C A Nos 86979 87679 87779 87879 87979 22478 89579 256477 and 258677 are allowed to the extent mentioned above
All the other appeals fail and are dismissed
The parties are left to pay and bear their own costs


Summary:
The Kerala State Legislature felt the necessity of making comprehensive land reforms in the State
The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1960 Act IV of 1961 was accordingly passed and received the assent of the President on January 21 1961
Some of its provisions were brought into force with effect from February 15 1961
That Act was struck down as unconstitutional by this Court
The Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1962 was then passed for the temporary protection of tenants in those taluks
The Kerala High Court declared it null and void in its application to the ryotwari lands of the Malabar area and most of the lands of Travancore area
As an interim legislation the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1963 was passed to provide some protection to the tenants
But it repealed the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1962 and suspended the operation of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1960
After re examining the requirements in the field of land reforms as a whole the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 was published in the State Gazette on Sept 15 1963
It covered a wide field in the matter of land reforms and inter alia provided for the imposition of a ceiling on holdings  of lands the surrender of excess of lands grant of compensation thereof and the assignment of the surrendered lands in accordance with the order of priority mentioned in the Bill collection of purchase price constitution of Land Tribunals etc
The Land Reforms Act 1963 Act 1 of 1964 received the assent of the President on Dec 31 1963
It was amended extensively and in several material particulars by Act 35 of of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972
The following three main points of controversy arose in the appeals  1
Whether lands converted into plantations between April 1 1964 and January 1 1970 qualified for exemption under section 811e of the Act
Whether a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under section 72K of the Act was binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act
Whether the validity or invalidity of transfers effected by persons owning or holding lands exceeding the ceiling limit could be determined with reference to the ceiling area in force on the date of the transfer or in accordance with the ceiling area prescribed by Act 35 of 1969 whether sub section 3 of section 84 was retrospective in operation
 HELD  Point No 1
The controversy is whether the restriction of sub
section 4 of section 82 came into force on January 1 1970 because section 12 of the amending Act of 1971 was brought into force on that date or 840 whether it came into force on April 1 1964 when section 82 as originally enacted came into force
853H 854G All the three Acts contain provisions about their commencement
Subsection 3 of section 1 of the Act provides that  i Section 1 of the Act shall come into force at once ii the other provisions of the Act shall come into force on such dates as the Government may appoint iii different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act and iv any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision
The Act was published in the Gazette on January 14 1964 and by virtue of section 3 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act section 1 came into force on that date
Sec 82 as has been stated came into force on April 1 1964 and the reference in sub section 4 of that section to the commencement of this Act meant a reference to the coming into force of that provision with effect from April 1 1964
It may be that the first three rules or directions contained in sub section 3 were spent on the coming into force of sec
1 of the Act or its other provisions on the dates appointed for them but for obvious reasons rule iv continued to hold the field inasmuch as it laid down the rule of construction that any reference to the commencement of the Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that particular provision
It was therefore applicable as a general rule of construction whenever it became necessary to ascertain the date of commencement of a particular provision of the Act other than section 1
854G 855B F Sub section 4 of section 82 as originally incorporated in the Act came into force on April 1 1964
It was amended by section 66 of the Amending Act of 1969 which came into force on January 1 1970 but that proved to be fortuitous and was supplanted by section 12 of the Amending Act of 1971 from the same date
The sub section as amended by the Amending Act of 1971 also dealt with the conversion of land into any other class of land after the commencement of this Act but it added the words or into a plantation and provided that such conversion shall not be taken into consideration for determining the extent of the land to be surrendered
855F H On the plain meaning of the proviso to sub section 3 of section 1 it follows that when the provision of sub section 4 of section 82 was brought into force on April 1 1964 its amended version also came into force from that date
856B E No particular significance attaches to the use of the expression provisions or provision in section 13 of the Act
A provision is a distinct rule or principle of law in a statute which governs the situation covered by it
So an incomplete idea even though stated in the form of a section of a statute cannot be said to be a provision for by its incompleteness it cannot really be said to provide a whole rule or principle for observance by those concerned
A provision of law cannot therefore be said to exist if it is incomplete for then it provides nothing
856G 857C D The amended section 82 of the Act is a distinct rule or a clause for it provides the extent of the ceiling area in the cases mentioned in it its effect on the lands owned or held individually by members of a family or jointly 841 by some or all the members of the family the taking into account of the shares of the members of the family or an adult unmarried person the effect of conversion of any class of land into any other class of land specified in the Schedule or into a plantation and the extent of land liable to be surrendered lands covered by a private trust or a private institution and exemption of land covered by section 816
The section is therefore a provision by any standard as it states the law relating to the imposition of ceiling on land
It may well be stated that sub section 4 of section 82 is also a provision of the law by itself for it lays down a distinct rule relating to conversion of land for observance by all concerned
857D F H 858A The view taken by the High Court in Ramunni Nair vs State of Kerala  in regard to the meaning to be attached to the words the commencement of this Act is substantially correct and does not call for interference
859B There is no force in the other argument that a landholder is in any event entitled to the benefit of the exemption under section 81 as amended by the Act of 1969 in respect of the extent of plantation within the ceiling area even though it were converted into a plantation during the period April 1 1964 to December 31 1969
The argument is untenable because while sub section 1 of section 81 provides that the provisions of Chapter III shall not apply to lands and plantations mentioned in it that is overridden by and is subject to the requirement of sub section 4 of section 82
859D F Reference made to Saidu Muhammed vs Bhanukuitan State of Kerala  Ors
vs Philomina etc
  and State of Kerala  Ors
vs K A Gangadharan  Point No 2
The question for consideration is whether the certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under section 72K of the Act is binding on the Taluk Land Board in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act for the purpose of taking a decision in regard to the ceiling area under sub section 5 of section 85
Sub section 1 of that section shows that the question for examination by the Board is not that relating to the existence of the tenancy rights of the person who files the statement under sub section 2 but that relating to the bona fides of his belief that the land sought to be excluded by him is liable to be purchased by a cultivation tenant
The Land Tribunal and the Taluk Land Board thus operate in their respective fields for the purpose of the Act
860 B E G
Sub section 2 of section 72K merely declares that the certificate of purchase shall be conclusive proof of the assignment of the right title and interest of the landowner and the intermediary if any to the tenant in respect of the holding concerned
There is nothing in the sub section to require that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in those proceedings would be conclusive proof of any other matter so as to bind the Taluk Land Board or any authority
Sub section 2 of section 72K therefore does not impinge on the authority of the Taluk Land Board to discharge its own functions under section 855
860G H 861A B As such the Board is quite free to cause the particulars mentioned in the statement to be verified and to ascertain whether the person filing it owns or holds any other land and to determine the extent as well as the identity of the excess land which he is required to surrender
In that sphere of work 842 the certificate of purchase is not required by law to be conclusive proof in regard to the surplus or any other land held by its holder so as to foreclose the decision of the Taluk Land Board under sub section 5 of section 85
861B D Moreover although the certificate of purchase is conclusive proof in respect of the matters stated in section 72K2 that only means that no contrary evidence shall be effective to displace it unless the so called conclusive evidence is inaccurate on its face or fraud can be shown Halsbury s Laws of England fourth edition vol
17 page 22 paragraph 28
Inaccuracy on the face of the certificate is not as wide in its connotation as an error apparent on the face of the record
It will therefore not be permissible for the Board to disregard the evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase merely on the ground that it has not been issued on a proper appreciation or consideration of the evidence on record or that the Tribunal s finding suffers from any procedural error
What sub section 2 of section 72K provides is an irrebutable presumption of law and it may well be regarded as a rule of substantive law
But even so it thereby does not take away the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board to make an order under section 855 after taking into consideration the conclusive evidentiary value of the certificate as far as it goes
861E H 862A The view taken in Kunianujan Thampuran  Ors
vs Taluk Land Board is thus not quite correct
862B Point No 3
Some of the persons who owned or held lands exceeding the ceiling prescribed by the Act had voluntarily transferred some of their lands after the publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the State Gazette on September 15 1963
Section 84 of the Act therefore provides that except for the transfers mentioned in the section the transfers so made shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid
The section has thus been linked with section 82 which specifies the ceiling area and has been so amended as to reduce that area considerably
The question is whether the validity of a voluntary transfer is to be determined with reference to the ceiling area in force on the date of the transfer or the reduced ceiling area prescribed by the Amending Act of 1969
As has been observed by this Court in State of Kerala  Ors
vs K A Gangadharan   section 84 has been enacted with a view to making the provisions of sections 83 and 85 effective
Section 15 of the Amending Act of 1972 which inserted sub section 3 in section 84 does not state that it has been made with retrospective effect and sub section 3 does not in terms state that it shall be deemed to have come into force from the date of the amendment which was made by the Amending Act of 1969
Even so it is necessary to examine the true effect of the insertion and to decide whether it is retroactive
862G H 863A D G H 864A B The primary rule of construction is that courts should be guided by the plain and clear language of the statute for the legislature is intended to mean what it has expressed
It is an equally important rule of interpretation that a statute is not to be read retrospectively except for necessity
864B So construed it is obvious that although the Act had not even come into force on September 15 1963 it invalidated the transfers made after that date in excess of the ceiling area it prescribed
It follows therefore that so long as September 15 1963 continues to remain the date with reference to which 843 the transfers are to be invalidated the variation in the extent of the ceiling has necessarily to work back to that date
The legislature therefore inserted sub section 3 of section 84 to clarify that the expression ceiling area in the earlier sub sections would mean the ceiling area specified in section 821 as amended by the Amending Act of 1969 ie the reduced ceiling
864D F In taking this view the Court made a reference to the notes on clauses to the Amending Bill of 1972 and observed that while it was true that the intention of the legislature cannot be ascertained from any statement by way of a note on the clauses of the Bill or brevet and the duty of the Court is to find the natural meaning of the words in a statute in the context in which they are used it has always been considered permissible and even desirable to take note of the history of the statute and the circumstances in which it was passed or the mischief at which it was directed
The reason is that the meaning which is to be given to a statute should be such as will carry out its object
So viewed it appears that as has plainly been stated in it the ceiling area referred to in sub sections 1 and 2 of section 84 is the reduced ceiling area specified by the Amending Act of 1969
It is clearly retrospective as it is meant to invalidate the transfers made after September 15 1963 when the Bill of 1963 was published
864F 865G H 866A B C The Court then examined some of the appeals separately and recorded its finding thereon
866F 868  869 879 877
While examining civil appeal No 1015 of 1976 the Court examined the question whether a child in the womb on January 1 1970 was a member of the family for the purpose of section 821 c of the Act
It referred to the definition of the expression family in clause 14 of sec
2 and of the expression minor as defined in clause 36A and held that two postulates were necessary for obtaining the benefit of the increase of one standard acre for each member of the family in excess of five namely that the member should be in existence and it should be possible to ascertain that he had not attained the age of 18 years on the appointed date
It was held that as both these conditions could not be said to exist in the case of a child en ventre sa mere it would not be regarded as a member of the family for purposes of sec
82 of the Act
868D F