IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 770 of 1994(E) --------------------------------- NO.C6/8247/78 OF TALUK LAND BOARD DATED 12/02/1993. ................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.L. SAJEEVAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- V.A. ANTONY, S/O.VADASSERY ANTONY, UDUMBANCHOLA VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P.No.770 of 1994-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This revision comes to the Division Bench on a reference made by a learned single Judge pointing out the conflict between few decisions of this Court touching on Sections 81 and 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Such conflict does not subsist in view of the amendment as per amending Act 27/1979 after which the decision in Raghavan v. State of Kerala, 1977 KLT 57 does not survive. 2.This revision under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" is filed by the State challenging the refusal of the Taluk Land Board, Udumpanchola to CRP770/94 -: 2 :- further proceed with the action proposed to be initiated suo motu under Section 87(1) read with Section 85 of that Act. 3.Patta No.1959 issued by the Tahsildar, Devikulam in the year 1120 M.E. shows that an entire extent of 193.57 acres of land in Udumpanchola Taluk is part of a cardamom estate. This statement of fact is contained in a report by the Special Deputy Tahsildar which is referred to in the impugned order of the TLB. In 1973, the respondent purchased that land. Thereafter, on 14.9.1973, he obtained a Government Order permitting the cardamom plantation to be converted into alternate plantation, i.e., coffee, oil palm etc. Obviously, the conversion could have been only to such a plantation which would continue to enjoy exemption in terms of the provisions of the Act. The impugned order shows that the respondent had filed statement to the effect that after the purchase of the cardamom plantation, on the strength of the aforesaid Government Order, he CRP770/94 -: 3 :- had converted it into a coffee plantation and thereafter, assigned it to different parties. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that assignment is in favour of different persons, may be more than 80 under two documents. 4.The question whether the proceedings in relation to the declaration by the respondent is liable to be re-opened would depend upon the question whether he had violated the order for conversion granted by the Government and thereby held any land as ineligible for exemption in terms of the Act beyond the permissible extent. This question will be relevant as on the date on which respondent made the transfers in favour of third parties. If he had converted the cardamom plantation into coffee plantation as contended by him in his statement before the TLB, he would have been entitled to transfer such lands as lands available for transfer. But, the question whether the subsequent transferees had thereafter CRP770/94 -: 4 :- put the property to a user for which exemption is not permitted would not necessarily be an incriminating fact against the respondent. Therefore, the question would be whether the respondent had converted the cardamom plantation into a coffee plantation before he transferred the property to third parties. As of now, all that we have on record is his statement in writing before the TLB asserting that he had converted the cardamom plantation into coffee plantation on the strength of the Government Order dated 14.9.1973 and it was thereafter that the transfers were made. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the transfer deeds in favour of the third parties recite a fact situation that the land in question was under the process of undergoing conversion. He, therefore, points out that even if the conversion had not become complete, it ought to have been taken that what was conveyed was a land which was intended to be converted absolutely in terms of the Government Order. The land was originally a CRP770/94 -: 5 :- cardamom estate at least from 1120 M.E. It remained as a cardamom estate as on 1.1.1970, as also 1.1.1964. It was this fact situation that enabled it to be treated as belonging to the exempted categories in terms of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent is right in pointing out that this Court had held in Varghese v. Taluk Land Board, 1982 KLT 72 that if the land in question reaches a particular status of being barrel during the process of a conversion, that barrel status cannot be treated to cull out the land from exempted categories and re-open the proceedings because while cutting down trees for the purpose of re-planting it is an inescapable fact situation that at some point of time the land has to be barrel. We, however, do not find much force with that judgment to apply on the facts of the case in hand based on the pleadings of the respondent. If a cardamom plantation is converted into a coffee plantation by effacing the existing cultivation and preparing the land for cultivation of coffee; all such processes CRP770/94 -: 6 :- would go as the process of conversion but it can be treated as having been converted only if the property ultimately becomes a coffee plantation. The intention to complete the conversion as a coffee plantation cannot be nipped on the way and the land put to different use even by vendees and thereby destroy the very object of an order of the Government permitting conversion of an exempted category of land to another exempted category of land. In this view of the matter, as of now, there is scant material to support the respondent's case that the cardamom plantation was actually converted to be a coffee plantation and it was thereafter that he sold the properties in small lots to different parties. It would have been only appropriate that the TLB also looked into the sale deeds made by the respondent in favour of the third parties. The authorized officer's report should have also focused on the actual fact situation discernible as on the date of transfer by the respondent to the third parties. CRP770/94 -: 7 :- With this view of the matter, the revision succeeds and we set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the TLB to provide the respondent further opportunity to prove his case as P.W.1 before the TLB. It will also be open to the TLB to take further steps as may be necessary, if needed, by issuing notice to any party whom the respondent may seek to bring on record. Needless to say, the TLB will provide the respondent sufficient opportunity to place all materials on record and adduce evidence as may be sought for. Resultantly, this revision stands allowed as above. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Judge. Sha/2610 CRP770/94 -: 8 :- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P.770 OF 1994-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Order 21st October, 2010.