Relevant Provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act – on Purchase Certificate,  Plantation Exemption & Ceiling Area – in a Nutshell

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

CONTENTS

• Part I — Chapters II & III, KLR Act – Outline
• Part II — Chapter II – ‘Provisions Regarding Tenancies’
• Part III —  Plantations
• Part IV — Vesting of Land in Govt. & Right of Govt. to Collect Rent
• Part V — Civil Court Jurisdiction : Decisions

PART I

CHAPTERS II & III, KLR Act – Outline

Objects of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964

Chapter II.

Chapter II (Sections 3 to 80G) of the KLR Act speaks about ‘Provisions Regarding Tenancies’. It deals, among other things, with:

• ‘fixity‘ (to tenants),
• vesting of property in Govt.,
• purchase of landlord’s rights by cultivating tenants,
• issuance of ‘certificate of purchase‘,
• rights and liabilities of Kudikidappukars.

Sec. 3(1) says that nothing in Chapter II shall apply to:

• leases-lands belonging to or vested in the Government, Leases-of private forests, tenancies in respect of plantations exceeding thirty acres in extent, etc.

Chapter III.

Chaptr III (Sections 81 to 98A) of the KLR Act deals with ‘Restriction on Ownership and Possession of Land in Excess of Ceiling Area and Disposal of Excess Lands’.

Among other things, it procures provisions as to:

• ceiling limit,
• exemptions from ceiling limit,
• filing ceiling return,
• determining extent to be surrendered,
• surrender,
• taking possession by TLB,
• effect of conversion of exempted land.

Sec. 81(1) says that the provisions of Chapter III shall not apply to –

• lands owned or held by the Government, private forests, plantations, etc.

• Note: 1. Section 81(1) exempts Government lands from the provisions of Chapter III. The Proviso says that the following Government lands will not stand exempted. 
  • 1. Government-lease-lands
  • 2. Lands that fall under Section 13 (Fixity) and
  • 3. Lands that fall under Section 72 (Lease lands vest in Government).
• 2. The effect of Chapter III on Government-lease-lands and on the lands that fall under Section 13 (Fixity) and 72 (vest in Government) is that the tenants (both Government’s tenants and the erstwhile Private landholders’ tenants) have to pay ‘rent‘ to the Government under Sec. 72F(h).
• 3. Section 81(4) “permits” use of the land not exceeding 5% of the extent of such holding for floriculture, dairy farms, hotels, restaurants, etc.
• 4. Under Sec. 112 (5A) of the KLR Act, on acquisition, the cultivating tenants are entitled to compensation for improvements (only) for the land vested in the Government under Sec. 72.
  Sec. 112 (5A)(a) says that the compensation for any building or other improvements belonging to the landowner shall be awarded to the Government; and clause (b) says that the balance remaining after deducting the compensation referred to in clause (a) and the value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut, if any, shall be apportioned between the cultivating tenant and the Government in proportion to the profits derivable by them from the land.

PART II

Chapter II – Provisions Regarding Tenancies

Analysis of S. 3(1)(viii) Proviso

Proviso speaks about “agricultural lands interspersed within the plantation”. In Poddar Plantations Limited v.  Thekkemariveettil Madhavi Amma, 2014-1 ILR(Ker) 813; 2013-4 KLJ 781; 2014-1 KLT 439, it is held:

• “Section 2(44) (c) cannot be read in isolation of Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the KLR Act. Reading the two provisions together, what can be discerned is only that if the tenant is entitled to fixity over the plantation (not being in excess of 30 acres), then, the land referred to in Sec. 2 (44)(c) of the KLR Act should also be counted and the tenant shall not be evicted from that land though he is not entitled to fixity over such land. This view is supported by the decisions in State of Kerala v. Amalgamated Tea Estates Co. (1980 KLT 728) and State of Kerala v. Hope Plantations Ltd. (1985 KLT SN 4 (Case No.6). If such an interpretation is not given, the result will be anomalous in that even if a person is liable to be evicted from the plantation, he can cling on to the land referred to in Sec.2(44)(c) of the KLR Act though not entitled to fixity. The intention of the Legislature was only to avoid eviction of the tenant from the land coming under Sec.2(44)(c) which is necessary for the proper management of area of plantation over which he is entitled to fixity.”

Government lands are covered by the exemption u/s 3(1)(x)

In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair M.N.,  (2013) 3 KLT 132, (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J ; A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J), it is observed as under:

•  “75. … Apart from that, in the light of Section 27 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and in the light of the settlement register and land register, the property is described as Temple puramboke and not Government puramboke. Further Government lands are covered by the exemption u/s 3(1)(x) of the Land Reforms Act and therefore he cannot claim any fixity of tenure. There is no claim by the Government here to the property.”

Fixity, Vesting in Govt. and Purchase Certificate:

• Sec. 13 says every tenant has fixity. But, holdings held by cultivating tenants alone will vest in Govt., under Section 72(1).
• Sec. 72 provides for automatic vesting of leasehold properties held by ‘cultivating tenants’ in Govt.  ILR 2010(2) Ker. 845. 
• Sec. 72 K provides that LT shall issue purchase certificate.  It shall be conclusive proof of assignment.

Assignment of Purchase certificate

• Sec. 72B provides for obtaining Purchase Certificate if applied within the period stipulated. Sec. 72C provides for suo moto action by LT. (No time limit,)

The tenant who opts to avail benefits of plantation-exemption, under Sec. 81, cannot seek fragmentation (Sec. 87, Explanation II) of the plantation land so as to obtain purchase-certificate (under Sec. 72B or 72C) within ceiling limit. Still, he stands as a cultivating tenant, “entitled to assignment” of the right under Sec. 72B. As shown elsewhere, there is an option for the tenant – either to obtain purchase-certificate or to avail plantation-exemption. (Note: No rider to Sec. 72B and 72C, by way of proviso or otherwise, exempting plantation.)

• Rule 5 of the Vesting & Assignment Rules provides – LT may suo moto – notwithstanding no application – assign to cultivating tenant. (See  S.72C also). 

Provisions as to Fixity, Purchase Certificate,  Ceiling Area, etc.

1. Tenant & Fixity –
   • Section 13(1) reads as under:
   • 13. Right of tenants to fixity of tenure.  (1) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in any law, custom, usage or contract or in any decree or order of court, every tenant, shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding, and no land from the holding shall be Limited except as provided in Sections 14 to 22.”
   • Tenant is defined in Sec 2 (57) as under:
   • (57) “tenant“ moans any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed to possess and to enjoy any land by a person entitled to lease that land, and includes- …. ….. ….. “
2. Cultivating Tenant & Vesting of land in Government –
   • Section 72(1) reads:
   • “72. Vesting of landlord’s rights in Government: (1) On a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyirippus and holders karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13, and in respect of which certificates of purchase under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, vest in the government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon the said date”
   • It provides (automatic) vesting of leasehold properties in Govt. Conditions thereof are:
     • (i) the land must be held by cultivating tenants;
     • (ii) they should be entitled to fixity of tenure under Sec. 13.
   • Sec. 2(8) defines cultivating tenant as under:
   • “cultivating tenant“ means a tenant who is in actual possession of, and is entitled to cultivate, the land comprised in his holding.”
3. Issue of Purchase Certificate
   • Section 72B(1), 72C and 72K(1) & (2) read as under:
   • “72B.  Cultivating  tenant’s  right  to  assignment.  ­  (1)  The cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Section 72, shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest:
   • Provided that ­
   • (a) no cultivating tenant shall be entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of any holding or part of a holding under this Section if he, or if he is a member of a family, such family, owns an extent of land not less than­ the ceiling area.
   • (b) where the cultivating tenant or, if he is a member of a family, such family, does not own any land or owns an extent of land which is less than the ceiling area, he shall be entitled to the assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of only such extent of land as will, together with the land, if any, owned by him or his family, as the case may be, be equal to the ceiling area.
   • Explanation. ­ In calculating the extent of land owned by the cultivating tenant or, where he is a member of a family, by such family, for the purposes of clauses (a) and (b) of the foregoing proviso, the portion of the land owned by such cultivating tenant or by the family, which is liable to be assigned to the cultivating tenants holding under him or such family, shall not be taken into account.
   • (2) The provisions of Section 82 shall, so far as may be, apply to the calculation of the ceiling area for the purposes of the proviso to Sub­section (1);
   • Provided that if no date has been notified under Section 83, the date notified under Section 72 shall be deemed to be the date notified under Section 83.
   • (3) Any cultivating tenant entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of a holding or part of a holding under Sub­section (1) may apply to the Land Tribunal within whose jurisdiction such holding or part is situate within two years from the date of vesting of such right, title and interest in the Government under Section 72, or such further time as may be allowed by the Government in this behalf, for such assignment to him.
   • (4) An application under Sub­section (3) shall contain the following particulars, namely:­
   • (a) the village, survey number and extent of the holding or part to which the assignment relates.
   • (b) the name and address of the landowner and intermediaries and also of every other person interested in the land and the nature of their interest so far as they are known to him;
   • (c) the particulars regarding the other lands owned or held by him or if he is a member of a family; by such family; and
   • (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
   • (5) Where a cultivating tenant is entitled to the assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of only a portion of the holding held by him, he may indicate in the application under Sub­section
   • (3) his choice of the portion to which the assignment shall relate.
   • “72C. Assignment where application is not made by cultivating tenant.  Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 72B [or Section 72BB], the Land tribunal may, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, at any time after the vesting of the right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in tile Government under Section 72, assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants entitled thereto, and the cultivating tenants shall be bound to accept such assignment.”
   • “72K. Issue of certificate of purchase. – (1) As soon as may be after the determination of the purchase price under Section 72F [or the passing of an order under Sub-section (3) of Section 72MM] the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of the holding or part thereof to which the certificate relates, shall vest in the cultivating tenant free from all encumbrances created by the landowner or the intermediaries, if any.
   • (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 landowner and the intermediaries, if any, over the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates.”
   • Note: Sec. 72F speaks as to ‘Land Tribunal to issue notices and determine the compensation and purchase price; and Sec. 72MM provides for jointly applying, by the cultivating tenant, the landowner, the intermediary, the holders of encumbrances, etc, to the Land Tribunal, for an order for ‘assignment by mutual agreement’ to the cultivating tenant.

Prohibition of future tenancies.

• Sec. 74 provides for Prohibition of future tenancies.

Section 81:

S. 81, the first Section in Chapter III deals with exemption from ceiling limit of plantation, industrial land, etc.

Sec. 81 reads as under:

• Exemptions: (1)The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to –
• (a) lands owned or held by the Government of Kerala or
• the Government of any other State in India or
• the Government of India or
• a local authority [or the Cochin Port Trust] [Inserted by Act 35 of 1969.] 
• or any other authority which the Government may, in public interest, exempt, by notification in the Gazette, from the provisions of this Chapter.
• [Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease whether current or time expired or otherwise.] [Inserted by Act 17 of 1972.]
• [Explanation I. [Numbered as Explanation I by Act 35 of 1969.] – “Lands owned by the Government of Kerala” shall, for the purposes of this clause, have the same meaning as “Government Lands” under Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960; [but lands escheated to the Government and held by tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 shall not be deemed to be lands owned by the Government of Kerala.]]
• [Explanation II. [Inserted by Act 35 of 1969.] – Lands, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Sub-section (9) of Section 66 or Section 72, shall not be deemed to be “lands owned by the Government of Kerala” for the purposes of this clause;]
• [Explanation III. [Inserted by Act 25 of 1971.] – For the purposes of this clause, “other authority”, shall include a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of Kerala or the Government of any other State in India or the Government of India;]
• (b) lands taken under the management of the Court of Wards:
• Provided that the exemption under this clause shall cease to apply at the end of three years from the commencement of this Act;
• (c) lands comprised in mills, factories or workshops and which are necessary for the use of such mills, factories or workshops;
• (d) private forests;
• (e) plantations;
• (f)[ cashew estate [Inserted by Act No. 6 of 2012.]
• Explanation. – For the purpose of this clause “cashew estate” shall mean dry land principally cultivated with not less than 150 cashew trees per hectare.]
• (g)[***] [Omitted by Act 35 of 1969.]
• (h) lands mortgaged to the Government, or to a co-operative society (including a co-operative land mortgage bank) registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act for the time being in force, or to the Kerala Financial Corporation, or to the Kerala Industrial Development Corporation or to the State Small Industries Corporation, as security for any loan advanced by the Government or by such Society or Corporation, so long as the mortgage subsists:
• Provided that the exemption under this clause shall cease to apply at the end of three years from the commencement of this Act;
• (i)lands purchased by the Kerala Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank or a Primary Mortgage Bank under Sec Lion 18 of the Kerala State Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1960, or by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., or by a primary agricultural credit co- operative society or by a scheduled bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 so long as such lands continue in the possession of the bank;
• (j)lands purchased by the Kerala Financial Corporation or lands the management of which has been taken over by that Corporation, under Section 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, so long as such lands remain in the ownership, or continue under the management, as the case may be, of the said Corporation:
• [Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply in the case of lands the management of which has been taken over by the Corporation on or after the 1st day of April, 1964;] [Added by Act No. 35 of 1969.]
• (k)lands belonging to or held by an industrial or commercial undertaking at the commencement of this Act, and set apart for use for the industrial or commercial purpose of the undertaking:
• Provided that the exemption under this clause shall cease to apply if such land is not actually used for the purpose for which it has been set apart, within such time as the District Collector may, by notice to the undertaking, specify in that behalf;
• (l)[***] [Omitted by Act No. 35 of 1969.]
• (m)[ house sites, that is to say, sites occupied by dwelling houses and lands, wells, tanks and other structures necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the dwelling houses.] [Substituted by Act No. 17 of 1972.]
• Explanation. – For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that a compound wall shall not he deemed to he a structure necessary for the convenient enjoyment of a dwelling house, if the land on which the dwelling house is situated and enclosed by the compound waif is more than the (and necessary (or the convenient enjoyment of the dwelling house.
• (n)[***] [Omitted by Act No. 35 of 1969.]
• (o)sites of temples, churches, mosques and cemeteries and burial and burning grounds:
• (p)sites of buildings including warehouses;
• (q)commercial sites;
• (r)land occupied by educational institutions including land necessary for the convenient use of the institutions and playgrounds attached to such institutions;
• (s)lands vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee;
• (t)lands owned or held by -(i)a University established by law; or(i)the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the University, institution or trust concerned; and(ii)where the University, institution or trust comes to hold the said lands after the commencement of this Act, the Government have certified previously that such lands are bona fide required for the purposes of the University, institution or trust, as the case may be; and(u)lands granted to defence personnel for gallantry.(ii)a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature; or(iii)a public trust which expression shall include a wakf;
• Provided that-
• (2)[***] [Omitted by Act No. 35 of 1969.]
• (3)[ The Government may if they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest -(a)on account of any special use to which any land is put; or(b)on account of any land being bonafide required for the purpose of conversion into plantation or for the extension or preservation of an existing plantation or for any commercial, industrial, educational or charitable purpose, by notification in the Gazette, exempt such land from the provisions of this Chapter, subject to such restrictions and conditions as they may deem fit to impose:
• Provided that the land referred to in clause (b) shall be used for the purpose for which it is intended within such time as the Government may specify in that behalf; and, where the land is not so used within the time specified, the exemption shall cease to he in force.] [Substituted by Act No. 35 of 1969.]
• (4)[ Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force of in any contract or other documents or in any judgement, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or Taluk Land Board or Land Board or other authority, a person holding plantation and lands ancillary thereto or interspersed within such plantation, [may, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, use] [Inserted by Act No. 6 of 2012.] not exceeding five per cent of the extent of such holding for floriculture or for the cultivation of Vanila or medicinal plants or other [agricultural crops or for conducting dairy farms] [Substituted ‘agricultural crops’ by Act No. 6 of 2015.] or for establishing hotels or resorts or other tourism projects and for purposes ancillary or connected therewith.]

Section 82 & 83:

S. 82 & 83 deal with ceiling area and bars holding land excess of ceiling fixed. Sec. 82 reads as under:

• 82. Ceiling area. – [(1) The ceiling area of land shall be,
• (a) in the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a sole surviving member, five standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall riot be less than six and more than seven arid a half acre in extent;
• (b) in the case of a family consisting of two or more, but not more than five members, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent.
• (c) in the case of a family consisting of more than five members, ten standard acres increased by one standard acre for each member M excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not he less than twelve and more than twenty acres in extent; and
• (d) in the case of any other person, other than a joint family, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling are shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent.]

Section 83

Sec. 83 reads as under:

• “83. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. With effect from such dates as may be notified by the Government in the Gazette, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area.”

Section 85(1) reads as under:

• 85. Surrender of excess land. (1) Where a person owns or holds land excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under Section 83, such excess land shall be surrendered as hereinafter provided: …. ….”

Section 2 (3) defines ceiling area as under:

• “Ceiling area” means the extent of land specified in section 82 as the ceiling area”.

Plantation: Definition

• “S.2.(44)” plantation” means any land used by a person principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon (hereinafter in this clause referred to as ‘plantation crops’) and includes.-
  • (a) land used by the said person for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops or for the preparation of the same for the market;
  • [(b) xxxx]
  • (c) agricultural lands interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated by the said person with plantation crops, not exceeding such extent as may be determined by the Land Board [or the Taluk land Board, as the case may be] as necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation.
• Explanation:- Lands used for the construction of office buildings, godowns, factories quarters for workmen, hospitals, schools and play grounds shall be deemed to be lands used for the purposes of sub-clause (a).

Relevant Provisions: Excess, Ceiling Return, Surrender, Exemption Etc.

• Sec. 85 (1) provides for Surrender excess.
• Sec. 85 (2) provides – Owners and Tenants of plantation (who owns and hold properties) should furnish statement (ceiling return) to Land Board before March 31, 1971, before the Land Board (including lands exempted under S. 81).
• Sec. 85 (3) provides – Excess shall be surrendered.
• Sec. 85 (5) provides – LAND BOARD shall DETERMINE – extend to be surrendered
• Sec. 85 (7) provides – Whereon a person fails to file statement (ceiling return) under 85(2), LAND BOARD shall intimate Taluk Land Board (TLB),– TLB shall determine land to be surrendered.
  • “The statute prescribes liability on the person who owes or hold the land in excess of the ceiling limit and if such a person fails to file the statement in accordance with law, the Board is enjoined to proceed against such person.” State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew, AIR 1996 SC 1009.
  • [TLB not to do, suo motu, without direction from LB. State Of Kerala Vs Idiculla, 1980 KLT 120, referred to Shircy, J. in One Earth One Live Vs. State of Kerala, 2019(1) KLT 985.]
  • The effect of not filing ceiling return can be equated to ‘not applying for assignment’ of purchase certificate, See: Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283.
• Sec. 85A provides – File ceiling return/statement within March  2, 1973 before Land Board.
• Sec. 86(1) provides – On determination of the extent to be surrendered (by LB) under S. 85- Excess vests in Govt. and Taluk Land Board shall issue an order accordingly.
• Sec. 86(3) provides – Where any person fails to surrender as demanded, the TLB may order an officer to take possession.
• Sec. 86(4) provides – Where any land, vests in the Govt, under s. 86(1) (including that of cultivating tenant) the ownership of such land shall vest in the Govt.
• Sec. 86(6) provides – Nothing applies to property of Govt. under KLC Act.
• Sec. 87 Exp. II  provides – If CONVERTED TO ANY OTHER CLASS and the person (who gets the property) owns excess of ceiling area – the excess shall be deemed to be land acquired (and fall under Sec. 87) .
• Sec. 87(1A) provides – Person referred to above (transferee) also should file statement (Return).
  • Title to the property is not decided by the TLB (Harikumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 44 (Para 9) Jagadeesachandran Nair v. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584 (para 11); Both decisions were referred to in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369 (para 54).

81(1)(a) Proviso says –

• “Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease“.

Plantation: Under Sec. 2, clause (44), plantation means any land used by a person principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon.

Ceiling area 

• Sec. 82 provides for ceiling.
• Sec. 83 provides – No person can hold or possess excess of ceiling area. (Holding is by tenant.)  
• It is a total bar. 
  • Apply to tenant also. 1980 KLT 259 (Gopalan Nair Vs. State), 1976 KLT 306  (Thomas Mariamma Vs. TLB),
  • The policy of the Act – no person –“be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area.” Raghunath Laxman Wani v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 2137) – quoted in 2008(1) KLJ 571 (State Vs. Puliyangattu). Followed in State vs Civil Judge, Nainital, AIR 1987 SC 16; Bhikoba S. Vs. ML Punchand Tathed, AIR 1982 (SC) 865.

Does Exemption of Plantation Cover Exemption of ‘Plantation LAND‘?

No.

It is for the following reasons –

• 1. The exemption is to the ‘plantation‘, and not to the ‘LAND‘.
• 2. Exemption is conditional – for it exists (only) as long as the plantation exists or continues;
• Because,
  • S. 2(44) defines ‘plantation’ as land used principally for the cultivation of a specific ‘plantation crop‘ like tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber etc.
  • Section 87, Explanation II states that if a plantation for which exemption is given on recognition of a specific ‘plantation-crop’ is converted into any other ‘plantation-crop’ or the plantation activity is not continued, the exemption may be lost; and the land will be taken for considering the ceiling limit.

Explanation II of Sec. 87 reads as under:

• “Explanation II – Where, after the date notified under Section 83, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or any land exempt under Section 81 from the provisions of this Chapter is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area, shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date.”

Purport of Sec. 87 and the Explanations in S.87(1)

Section 87 reflects the legislative intention in protecting plantations. The protection is on economic grounds. That is, certain crops and cultivations that made the land of Kerala renowned from ancient times were to be protected. Section 87 and the Explanations are to be read and interpreted in the light of their intentions. The Kerala High Court aptly appreciated these provisions in this background in One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 KHC(SN) 10; 2019-1 KLT 985.

In State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur v. State of Kerala, 2009(3)KLJ 110, it is held as under:

• “19.There is no restriction on alienation of lands exempted under Section 81 (1)(a) of the Land Reforms Act ,since such lands are exempted from the operation of Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act dealing with ceiling on holding. It is not the excess land that is alienated but the exempted land………”

It was further held in para 21-  

• ”……Any exemption from ceiling provision under the Kerala Land Reforms Act has a purpose and the purpose in the present case is public interest and that public interest is the use of land for industrial purpose. Since under the Kerala Land Reforms Act there is no restriction on alienation of the exempted category of lands and since the transferee is subjected to the acid test of eligibility and entitlement for exemption in terms of use of the land, the transfer made by the HMT will also be subjected to the same test, namely use of the transferred land for industrial purpose. In other words, HMT is legally entitled to transfer 100 acres of land notified under Ext.R1(i) notification, but the transferee will have to use that land for industrial purpose and that purpose only. Therefore, the transfer is not vitiated in any way; but the transferee will have to use the land only for industrial purpose. That is a covenant on the land.” (Quoted in: One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 KHC(SN) 10; 2019-1 KLT 985)

In Everest Stone Crusher and Granites v. District Collector, District Collectorate, Kannur (Anil K. Narendran, J.), 2020-6 KHC 289, it is held as under:

• “Therefore, Ext.P13 prohibitory order issued by the 1st respondent District Collector, during the pendency of suo motu proceedings under Section 87 of the Act, cannot be said to be one issued without reasonable grounds to believe that any document relating to transfer of land of the land owned by the petitioner, which may be presented before the 3rd respondent registering officer, is intended to defeat the provisions of the said Act. The said order warrants no interference in this writ petition, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

For Plantation Exemption, Tenant must have Approached LT

As shown above –

If the tenant had raised a plantation on bare land leased –

• Such plantations are not excluded (from Chapter II) by the ‘Exemption’ clause under S. 3(1)(viii).
  • Therefore, tenants of such tenancy-land are entitled for benefits under Chapter II such as
    • Fixity under Sec. 13,
    • purchase certificate within ceiling limit etc.
  • Though the tenant has fixity, he is not the owner of such (entire) land. Because such lands vest in Govt. under Sec. 72. And, a purchase certificate cannot be obtained for the extent above the ceiling limit.

Land Tribunal is the only authority to determine “lease”

In Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283, it is pointed out – when a title claim is raised by the Government or the Devaswom, the person who claims to be a cultivating tenant

• “will have to first prove their claim of being a cultivating tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure, under the provisions of the KLR Act through a proper process of law.“
• “This is pertinent because, under Section 72B(3) of the KLR Act, it is legally obligated on every cultivating tenant, entitled to assignment of right, title and interest in respect of any property, to apply to the Land Tribunal, within whose jurisdiction that the property is situated, within two years from the date of vesting of such title and interest.”

That is, for getting the Exemption under Chapter III, the tenant must have approached the Land Tribunal for getting the tenancy ‘declared’.

• Note: Under the Scheme of the KLR Act, the Land Tribunal is the only authority to determine “lease”. Even the Civil Court has to send the matter to LT for determing ‘tenancy’. (Mathevan Padmanabhan @ Ponnan v. Parmeshwaran Thampi, 1995 SCC (SUPP) 1-479).

Sec. 73B(3) of the KLR Act reads as under:

• “(3) Any cultivating tenant entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of a holding or part of a holding under Sub­section (1) may apply to the Land Tribunal within whose jurisdiction such holding or part is situate within two years from the date of vesting of such right, title and interest in the Government under Section 72, or such further time as may be allowed by the Government in this behalf, for such assignment to him.”

It is definite: the principle applied in the Balanoor case (that it is legally obligated on every cultivating tenant to apply to the Land Tribunal) is the following –

• It is for adjudicating the ‘tenancy right’.
• The reason is that the Land Tribunal is the only authority that can decide on the “tenancy right.”
• Under Sec. 72A, the Landlord is entitled to Compensation and under Sec. 72D a tenant is bound to pay the Purchase Price. The Scheme of the KLR Act requires that there should be proceedings under Sec. 72 B or 72C.
• Suo Motu proceedings may not be taken by the Government in favour of a Plantation Tenant (entitled to purchase certificate within the ceiling limit)
• Note: A tenant cannot declare himself to be a cultivating-tenant and avail benefits – the competent statutory authority (for the same) under the KLR Act is the Land Tribunal.
• Title to the property is not decided by the TLB (Harikumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 44 (Para 9) Jagadeesachandran Nair v. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584 (para 11); Both decisions were referred to in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369 (para 54).  In Ganapathy Acharya v. Bhaskaran (TLV Iyer, J.), ILR 1993-3 (Ker) 736; 1993 2 KLT 962, it is pointed out:
  • “If there is dispute on any of these points necessarily the Land Tribunal has to go into the question of possession and the alleged tenancy”.

Landlords Entitled Compensation

Section 72A reads as under:

• 72A.  Compensation to landlords for vesting of their rights in Government. (1) Every landowner and intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government under Section 72 shall be entitled to compensation as provided in Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4).
  (2) The compensation payable to the landowner and intermediaries under Sub-section (1) shall be the aggregate of:-(a)sixteen times the fair rent of the holding or part thereof, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government;
  (b) the value of structures, wells and embankments of a permanent nature belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries, if any; and
  (c) one-half of the value of timber trees belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries, if any:
  Provided that where the aggregate of the value of structures, wells and embankments and one-half of the value of the timber trees referred to in clauses (b) and (c) exceeds sixteen times the fair rent in respect of the holding or part thereof, as the case may be, such aggregate value shall, for the purpose of calculating the compensation under this Sub-section, be limited to sixteen times such fair rent.
• Explanation I. – For the purposes of this Section and Section 72 D, “fair rent” means the fair rent under this Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969.
• Explanation II. – For the purposes of this Section, where the rent is payable in kind, the money value of the rent shall be commuted at the average of the prices of the commodity for the six years immediately preceding the year in which the right, title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries have vested in the Government, and in calculating the average of the prices, the prices, if any, published under Section 43 may also be taken into account.
  (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2), where the total compensation due to a landlord in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants, after deducting the value of encumbrances and claims for maintenance or alimony, is more than twenty thousand rupees, the compensation payable to such landlord shall be limited to the amount specified in the Table below:-
• Table
• Scales of Compensation : Total Amount Of Compensation : Rate
  On the first Rs. 20,000 : 100 percent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 95 per cent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 90 per cent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 85 percent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 80 percent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 75 per cent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 70 per cent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 65 per cent
  On the next Rs. 10,000: 60 per cent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 : 55 percent
  On the next Rs. 10,000 and above: 50 percent
  
• (4)Where the landowner or intermediary of a holding or part of a holding is entitled to receive fifty per cent of the compensation in respect of that holding or part in a lump under Section 72H, the compensation payable to such landowner or intermediary, as the case may be, in respect of that holding or part shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), be 75 per cent of the amount calculated under Sub-section (2).

Tenant Liable to Pay Purchase Price

Section 72D reads as under:

• 72D. Purchase price. 
• (1)The cultivating tenant shall be liable to pay purchase price to the Government on the assignment to him of the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any.
• (1A)[ Where the total extent of land held as tenant by a cultivating tenant is one hectare or below, he shall not be liable to pay purchase price under Sub-section (1).
• Explanation. – For the removal of doubt it is hereby clarified that the benefit conferred to a cultivating tenant until r this Sub-section shall not affect the eligibility of the landowner or intermediary, if any, to receive compensation to which he is entitled under the Act.

What is the Position if the Tenant holds Maximum Within the Ceiling

As shown above, before proceeding to the Land Board or Taluk Land Board as regards the ‘exemption’, the tenant has to “Purchase of the Right, Title and Interest of the Landowner” under Sec. 73B(3). What is the position if the tenant already holds the maximum amount of property allowed by the ceiling limit (and no additional property can be purchased)?

• In such a situation, it is legitimate to say that the tenant has to approach the Land Tribunal and obtain a Certificate stating that (i) he is a tenant of the property under consideration and (ii) he is already in possession of the maximum amount of property allowed by the ceiling limit.

Plantation Exemption, Fixity & Purchase Certificate for a Tenant below 30-acres-plantation

• By virtue of S. 3(1)(viii), a Tenant (below 30-acres-plantation) will get fixity (Sec. 13) and can continue possession.
  • And, under Chapter III, Sec. 81(1)(e), he can also avail benefits of exemption for plantation (without being affected by the ceiling limit – Sec. 82 & 83).
  • Note: For getting benefits under Sec. 81 exemption, the tenant should have filed ceiling return (under Sec. 85(2); 85A).
• Purchase Certificate being provided within ceiling limit alone under Sec. 72B or 72C, it is legitimate to state that a tenant cannot get Purchase Certificate on the plantation land, under Sec. 72B or 72C. (Note: No rider to Sec. 72B and 72C, by way of proviso or otherwise, exempting plantation.)

Combined Impact of Sec. 3(1)(viii) and Sec. 81 on Plantation-Tenancy-land

1. Below 30 acres – Chapter II applies
   • By virtue of S. 3(1)(viii)Chapter II applies to all tenancies (both above and below 30 acres. It stands contradistinct to ‘leased-lands-upon-which-plantation-was-put-up’ by the tenant above 30 acres.
   • Such tenants also get benefit of exemption under Sec. 81 and they can continue without being affected by the ceiling limit under Sec. 82 and 83.
   • For getting benefits of Sec. 81 exemption ceiling return (Sec. 85(2); 85A). should have been filed.
2. Above 30 acres ‘Plantation-Tenancy’– KLR Act will not Apply
   • S. 3(1)(viii) being exclude (from Chapter II) ‘Plantation-Tenancy’ (i.e. ‘leased-lands-upon-which-plantation-was-put-up’ by the landlord) above 30 acres, provisions of Chapter II do not apply to such plantations.
   • Hence, No ‘fixity’ under Sec. 13, for the tenants of ‘Plantation-Tenancy’ above 30 acres.
   • Contract applies to termination of tenancy, above 30 acre plantation–tenancy. But, until evicted lawfully, such tenants get benefit of exemption under Sec. 81 and they can continue without being affected by the ceiling limit under Sec. 82 and 83.
   • Land lord is entitled Sec. 81 exemption over such plantation.
   • For getting benefits of Sec. 81 exemption, ceiling return [Sec. 85(2); 85A] should have been filed.
3. If tenant raised plantation on bare land leased: S. 3(1)(viii) does not apply.
   • S. 3(1)(viii) does not deal with plantations put up on bare land leased by the tenants. (Such property is not excluded from Chapter II, also.)
   • That is, the protection or benefits given to tenants (fixity) can be availed by such tenants (who put up plantation on land leased).
   • No purchase Certificate can be obtained, for, fragmentation of plantation will not be allowed (Sec. 87 Expl. II).
   • Under Sec. 81, such tenants can avail exemption and they can also continue without being affected by the ceiling limit under Sec. 82 and 83.
   • Such lands also vest in Government under Sec. 72.
   • For getting benefits of Sec. 81 exemption ceiling return [Sec. 85(2); 85A]. should have been filed.

Liability of Certain Planters to Pay Rent

(1) Following Plantation-Tenants are liable to pay rent to the Government according to the KLR Act.

• (1) Tenants in Govt. land.
  • Because, no provision in the KLR Act affects the liability of the tenants of the Govt. lands to pay rent; and such Govt. lands are exempted from Chapter II (that deals with ‘fixity’, Purchase Certificate, vesting, etc..
• (2) Tenants of Plantation lands who have taken the lease of extensive parambus or waste lands and in course of time by hard toil had developed those into plantations.
  • Because, the legislature had conferred the benefit of the fixity of tenure to such tenants; and such lands (over and above the land to which purchase certificate is given) vest in Govt. under Sec. 72.

(2) Following Plantation-Tenants are liable to pay rent to the Land-owner (or the Land-owner) according to the KLR Act.

• The tenants of those Plantations (i) above 30 acres and (ii) the land-owner had put up the plantation before leasing (that is, plantation existed when land was leased).
  • Because, no provision in the KLR Act affects the liability of the tenants of such lands to pay rent to the land owners; and such lands are exempted from Chapter II (that deals with ‘fixity’, Purchase Certificate, vesting, etc..                               

Relevant provisions in the KLR Act:

Section 3(1)(viii):

• Provisions of Chapter II (that deals with fixity, Purchase Certificate, vesting of leased land in Govt., etc.) do not apply to tenements of Plantation above 30 acre (where the land-owner had put up the plantation before leasing).

Section 13:

• There will be fixity to cultivating tenants.
• But, (1) Plantation-tenants in Govt. land and (2) The tenants of Plantation above 30 acre (where the land-owner had put up the plantation before leasing) do not have the right of fixity (for. provisions of Chapter II do not apply to such tenements.

Section 72:

• It provides – automatic vesting of lease-properties held by cultivating-tenants, in Govt.
• But, (1) Plantation-tenants in Govt. land and (2) The tenants of Plantation above 30 acre (where the land-owner had put up the plantation before leasing) do not vest in Govt. (for. provisions of Chapter II do not apply to such tenements.

Section 81:

• S. 81, the first Section in Chapter III, deals with exemption from ceiling limit of plantation, industrial land, etc.

Section 82 & 83:

• S.82 & 83 deals with ceiling area and bars holding land excess of ceiling fixed.

Section 85(1):

• S. 81 mandates surrender of excess land (to Govt). But it is not applicable to the plantations (as they are exempted)

Can the Govt. enact new Act for ensuring ‘Proper Rent’ (if it finds 1980 Act not effective)?

Yes; because,

1. As the KLR Act does not affect rights of such land-owners/landlord  (including Govt.) for rent.
2. The matter of fixation of rent is a State subject (subject to further discussion). 

The State Legislature is free, therefore, to make a proper enactment on public interest.  Here, it may also be noted that a large extent of Govt. land is in the possession of mighty and wealthy planters. 

In N. K. RAJENDRA MOHAN Vs. THIRVAMADI RUBBER CO.  LTD, AIR 2015 SC 2556; 2015-4 KLT 6, it is held as under:

• “That the legislature had construed it to be unfair and improper to deny the benefit of the fixity of tenure to a lessee who might have taken the lease of extensive parambus or waste lands and in course of time by hard toil had developed those into plantations.

Analysis

Plantation leased (Plantation existed when land was leased).	Land leased Tenant made plantation. Sec. 81 (exemption from ceiling limit) applies.
Plantation above 30 Acre.  Will there be fixity to tenant?
No.  Sec. 3 (1)(viii) (reversely) applies. (Poddar Plan. Ltd v. Thekkemariveettil Madhavi Amma, 2014 1 ILR(Ker) 813; 2013 4 KLJ 781; 2014 1 KLT 439,)	Yes. (Note: Ceiling limit (in Sec. 82) is not mentioned in Sec. 13 – as given in Sec. 72B and 72C.) (Sec. 13 fixity is there for every tenant, if tenant toiled a plantation – See: Rev. Fr. Jerome Fernandes Vs. Be Be Rubber Estate, 1972 KLT 613.) Such tenants should pay rent to Govt. under Sec. 72 E & 72F
Plantation below 30 Acre.  Can a tenant get purchase certificate for 5 or 10 acres?
May be. No specific provision. So, by virtue of Chapter II, a tenant can get Purchase Certificate; but, within ceiling limit – Sec. 13 – under Sec. 72B, 72C. (See notes just below also)	No.  No specific provision. Fragmentation of plantation will not be allowed so as to get pur. certi. within ceiling limit (Sec. 87).
Plantation below 30 Acre. Will there be fixity to tenant?
Yes. By virtue of S. 3(1)(viii), a Tenant has fixity (Sec.13). It is reasonable to say, a tenant cannot claim fixity and Purchase Certificate, simultaneously. Such tenants should pay rent to Govt. under Sec. 72 E & 72F	Yes. (Because what is exempted is Plantation-Tenancies exceeding 30 acres) Sec. 13 fixity, applies. Such tenants should pay rent to Govt. under Sec. 72 E & 72F
Who gets Sec. 81 exemption – land-owner or tenant – above 30 acre.
Land owner – For, plantation itself was leased.	Tenant
Can landlord recover possession – above 30 acre – from the tenant?	.
Yes. No express provision. But, contract holds the field (because no protection to tenant, under Chapter II).	No. (Because Plantation-Tenancies exceeding 30 acres is exempted, and therefore no protection to tenant) Sec. 13 fixity, applies. See: N. K. Rajendra Mohan Vs Thirvamadi Rubber Co.  Ltd.: AIR 2015 SC 2556; 2015-4 KLT 6
Will a tenant get Fixity (S. 13) or Purchase Certificate (S. 72) on “tenancies…”, ‘interspersed within the plantation’ S. 3(1)(viii)
(Not applicable)	Yes. But, within ceiling limit – Sec. 13 – under Sec. 72B, 72C. Proviso refers to a special category on independent-tenancy [from the plantation-tenancy, mentioned in the main Section, S. 3(1)(viii)].
Will there be vesting of land below 30 acres in Govt?
Yes. Then what is the relation between Govt. and the original tenant? Relation that is recognised by the Statute. That is, fixity in the land vested in Government. Such tenants should pay rent to Govt. under Sec. 72 E & 72F	Yes (for both above and below 30 acres). Then what is the relation between Govt. and the original tenant? Relation that is recognised by the Statute .That is, fixity in the land vested in Government. Such tenants should pay rent to Govt. under Sec. 72 E & 72F

Effect of Conversion of A Portion of Exempted Land into a Non-exempted Category

Section 87 reads as under:

• “S.87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc. to be surrendered – (1) Where any person acquires any land dafter the date notified under Section 83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed.
•        Explanation 1 – Where any land is exempted by or under Section 81 and such exemption is in force on the date notified under Section 83, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under Section 83.
•        Explanation II – Where, after the date notified under Section 83, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or any land exempt under Section 81 from the provisions of this Chapter is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area, shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date.

No Total Prohibition in using Exempted Land for a Different Purpose

Explanation II does not make a total bar. It only causes to lose benefit of the exemption to a certain extent. That is, if a person converts any portion of his exempted land to any other class, that converted extent will be added to his account in determining his ceiling limit; and the Taluk Land Board can proceed upon that (excess) land. In short, the exemption will be lost for that portion. In this premises, in Wayanad Granites v. District Collector, 2023-4 KLT 874, it is held that ‘fragmentation is per se not illegal’. similarly, in District Collector v. Sajith Lal, 2023-4 KLJ 851, it is held that ‘there is no embargo under law in using any exempted land for non-exempted purposes as well’.

In Mathew K.T v. State of Kerala, 19 April, 2024, in the light of earlier decisions, observed that there is no total prohibition in using an exempted land for a different purpose under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The impediment or restriction is (only) the following –

• If a portion of the exempted land is utilised for any other purpose, that would fall within his ceiling area and the authorities may be able to initiate ceiling proceedings.

The Full Bench decision, Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority [AIR 2019 Ker. 67, affirmed by the Supreme Court in K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob, 2020-14 SCC 126] held as under:

• “We however add that any class of land earlier exempted in the ceiling case can be converted into any class of land not liable to be exempted under Explanation II to Section 87 of the Act. The consequence is that the benefit of the exemption would be lost and the extent added to the account of the assessee or the declarant in determination of his ceiling area. That is a matter to be dealt with by the Taluk Land Board with the assessee or the declarant and other interested parties on the party array and we desist from elaborating further.”

In District Collector v. Sajith Lal (2023-4 KLJ 851; 2023 KLT OnLine 1225) it is held as under:

• “5. There is no embargo under law in using any exempted land for non- exempted purposes as well. If the land is used for non-exempted purposes, the holder of the land will lose the qualification for exemption, thus giving authority to the Land Board to initiate ceiling proceedings.” (Quoted in: Mathew K.T v. State of Kerala, 19 April, 2024)

No Embargo to Transfer Plantation Land

In R. V.  Devassia v. Sub Registrar, Idukki, 2015-1 ILR(Ker) 1047; 2015-1 KHC 805; 2015-2 KLJ 17, it is held as under:

• “9. On promulgation of the KLR Act in the State, the entire landed property in the State is subjected to State control as envisaged under the provisions of the KLR Act. No piece of the land escapes the clutches of the KLR Act including exempted land for ceiling purposes. The ceiling proceedings is a continuing proceedings and can be reopened in any of the circumstances, if so warranted, as contemplated under Section 87 of the KLR Act. Exemption granted from ceiling is the qualification to use the land in a particular manner, which means a burden is imposed on the land. The moment the qualification for exemption is vanished by conversion of the land, the protection from ceiling will also be extinguished to bring the land within the fold of the ceiling area. The exemption is in the nature of a burden on the land to use the land for the purpose for which exemption is granted. The eminent domain power of the State can be exercised for acquiring land without consent and also to regulate the use of land in public interest. The eminent domain is power inherent in any Sovereign State. This burden would bind the holder of the land as on 01/01/1970 and the successor-in-interest. The Division Bench of this Court in the State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur and another v. State of Kerala and others [2009 (3) ILR 695] held that exemption granted under S.81(1)(a) is for the land and would continue to operate irrespective of change of ownership of the exempted land and the transferee would have to use the land for the purpose for which exemption is granted.”

In Everest Stone Crusher and Granites v. District Collector, Kannur, 2020-6 KHC 289, it is observed as under:

• “16. In Devassia R.V. this Court noticed that, the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act do not place any embargo on transfer. The transfer of registry is for fiscal purposes. The power of the competent authority to reopen the ceiling proceedings to include the land exempted for the purpose of ceiling is not lost on account of effecting mutation. Therefore, the Revenue Officials cannot refuse to effect mutation of the property purchased by the transferee.”

Effect of Fragmentation for Non-exempted Category

The decision in One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 KHC(SN) 10; 2019-1 KLT 985, arose from the Writ Petition filed for a declaration that the fragmentation and sale of a Rubber Plantation for non-plantation purposes was illegal as it defeated the purpose of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. When the matter was placed before the Taluk Land Board under Sec 87, KLR Act, it found that there was no change in classification of the land and therefore dropped the proceedings. The Court held as under:

• “34. Section 81 of the KLR Act is in pith and substance a special provision, with its main objective of giving exemption to certain lands including the lands maintained as plantations is to prevent fragmentation of the land and to keep it as plantation itself to improve the economy of the state for welfare of people as a whole while the Act creates a regime, the State is under an obligation to safeguard, the intended purpose of the provisions of the Act in its spirit. ….. …… It could be gathered from the records that the proposal to transfer 1.03 acres of land to each workers in discharge of their service or retrenchment benefits will definitely divide the plantation into separate slots and that would definitely change the character/nature of the plantation, which could be termed as ‘conversion’ and that will be against the provisions of the Act.”

Read Blog: Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell

Can a Tenant of Plantation Transfer his Rights, Fragmenting the Plantation

Possession is a heritable and transferable right. [See: Nallammal v. Ayisha Beevi, 2017-5 Mad LJ 864; Phirayalal Kapur Vs. Jia Rani, AIR 1973 Delhi 186]. Therefore, a tenant of plantation having rights of fixity (Sec. 13) may have the right to transfer it to another. In any case, the change of character or nature of the plantation by fragmentation being amount to ‘conversion’ (as Provided in Sec. 87 Expl. II) that will be against the provisions of the Act, as pointed out in One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 KHC(SN) 10; 2019-1 KLT 985.

• “72. Vesting of landlord’s rights in Government: (1) On a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyirippus and holders karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13, and in respect of which certificates of purchase under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, vest in the government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon the said date”

Sec. 81 exemptions do not apply to Govt. lands; But, Exemption apply to lease-lands

Government lands are exempted under Sec. 81(1)(a).

81(1)(a) Proviso says –

• “Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease“.

This proviso is introduced in 1971. By virtue of this amendment (introducing Section 81(1)(a) Proviso) “Plantation-Exemption” takes effect on Government-lease-land (with tenants).

But it must be noted that a ‘valid lease’ must exist. That is, the person in possession of government land should be a “lessee”; he must not be trespasser or a person who forfeit the title of Government.

Section 81(1)(a) Proviso reads as under:

• “Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease whether current or time expired or otherwise.”

The word “otherwise” must be understood as a permissive occupation

In MT Joseph v.  State of Kerala, AIR 1974 Ker 28, it is held-

• “Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 81 by which “Government lands held under a lease current or time expired or otherwise” can be understood only as referring to such lands which are held by persons in permissive possession. The word “otherwise” must be understood as a permissive occupation otherwise than under a lease. The word “otherwise” has no wider meaning in the context. So understood, the exemption to Clause (a) of that Section is perfectly legal and in that limited sense we uphold that provision as valid.”

Tenant is defined in Sec 2 (57) as under:

• (57) “tenant“ moans any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration
• for his being allowed to possess and to enjoy any land by a person entitled to lease that land, and includes- …. ….. ….. “

Section 86 reads:

• 86. Vesting of excess lands in Government. (1) On the determination of the extent and other particulars of the lands, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered under Section 85, the ownership or possession or both, as the case may be of the land shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances and the Taluk Land Board shall issue an order accordingly.
• (2) On receipt of [the order of the Taluk Land Board under Sub-section (1)] such person shall make the surrender demanded, in such manner as may he prescribed.
• (3) Where any person fails to make the surrender demanded, the [Taluk Land Board] may authorise any officer to take possession or assume ownership of the land in such manner as may be prescribed.
• [(4) Where the ownership of any land vests in the Government under Sub-section (1), the rights of the intermediary, if any, in respect of the land shall stand extinguished, and where possession of any land which was in the possession of a cultivating tenant vests in the Government under that Sub-section, the ownership of such land shall vest in the Government and the rights of the intermediary, if any, in respect of such land shall stand extinguished.]

Who is the OWNER of Exempted (Private-Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala?

It is Government, though by virtue of Chapter II (Sec. 13) the tenant has ‘Fixity’. 

• 1. Plantation (lease) Lands VEST in GOVT, automatically
• Because,
• Sec. 72 provides for 
  • mandatory and involuntary vesting in Government–
  • of leasehold lands that is held by cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under Sec. 13 (even if the extent exceeds ceiling limit).
  • See: Perumal Smaraka Nidhi vs M/S Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., 31. 01. 2013.
• 2.  ‘Vesting’ in Govt. is ‘Vesting of Ownership‘
• It is for the reasons –
  • Declared to be ‘vested’ in Government (Sec. 72).
  • Such a tenant is liable to pay ‘rent’ (Sec. 72E) to the Government for the unassigned land, like plantation-exempted-land, vested in Govt. under Sec. 72.
• 3. ‘Exemption’ in Chapter III Cannot be read into Sec. 72B(2)
• The provision of law for giving Purchase-Certificate under Sec. 72B specifies that the provisions of Sec. 82 (as to ceiling limit) shall apply for the calculation of the ceiling area (alone).
• Sec. 72B(2) reads-
  • (2) The provisions of Section 82 shall, so far as may be, apply to the calculation of the ceiling area for the purposes of the proviso to Sub-section (1)
• The exemption provision in Sec. 81 (Chapter III), which excludes plantation lands from the ceiling limit, cannot be brought-forth or read-into Sec. 72B (provision for assignment of purchase-certificate) in Chapter II.
  • In other words, purchase-certificates cannot be given for land above ceiling-limit, rigging the exemption provisions (for plantations etc.).
• Because,
  • Sec. 72B(1), in Chapter II shows – Sec. 72B(1) is an independent provision (though the Proviso says –  no cultivating tenant shall be entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest … (more than) … the ceiling area, mentioned in Sec. 82 in Chapter III)
  • When a provision in a latter Chapter of an Act (here, Sec. 82 that deals with extent of ceiling limit, in Chapter III) is referred to in an independent provision in an earlier Chapter (here, Sec. 72B, as regards issuing purchase certificate, in Chapter II), for a specific purpose (here, to state the limit in area alone), it cannot be said – the attributed colour or smell of the provision in the latter chapter (by virtue of other provisions, i.e., entire characteristics or attributions added to Sec. 82 by virtue of other provisions in Chapter III), would stand reflected on the earlier provision (here, Sec. 72B).
• Further –
  • Chapter II of the KLR Act (dealing with ‘Tenancy’) is exclusive and exhaustive as to ‘fixity’, and ‘vesting’ of land in Government.
  • It is not stated anywhere in the Act – the right and title of the (leased-plantation) land legitimately vested in Government under Sec. 72, will be divested in any manner (in favour of the previous owner, or of the tenant or anybody else), in any circumstance.
  • Sec. 72E provides for collection of ‘rent‘ from the holders of the plantation (for the unassigned land_{(e.g. exempted plantation land)} vested in Government under Sec. 72) and Sec. 72F(5)(h) authorises the Land Tribunal to fix the rent. (It goes without saying saying that it is for the reason that the ownership of the land vests in Govt.)
  • Note: Proceedings initiated by Taluk Land Board under Chapter III (in respect of plantation) do not confer title.
  • Title to the property is not decided by the TLB (Harikumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 44 (Para 9) Jagadeesachandran Nair v. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584 (para 11); Both decisions were referred to in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369 (para 54).
• 4. Government Need Not Pay ‘Land-Value‘, as such, if Acquired
  • For the above (plantation land vest in Govt.), the Government Need Not Pay ‘Land-Value‘, as such, to the tenant, or the former owner, if such Lands are Acquired.
• 5. Tenant cannot ‘Sell’ Plantation Land as his absolute property
  • A tenant who got ‘fixity’ over such land cannot ‘sell’ this land as his absolute (ownership) property.

Rights of ‘tenants’ of Plantations, after vesting the land with Govt.? It is a ‘Legal Right conferred by Statute’

• It is not Tenancy – For no landlord-tenant relation with the Govt.
• Not Grant or Licence/Permission – For Grant as well as Licence/Permission arise from a contract (express or implied).
• Therefore, it can termed only as a “Legal Right conferred by Statute“, the KLR Act.

• What are the Stipulations attached to that “Legal Right”?
  • Subject to the condition – not to “convert” it for any other use, other than the specific plantation (Sec. 87).
• When Such a land is Required for Govt., Should it be Acquired?
  • The ownership being vested in Govt. it need not be ‘strictly’ “acquired”.
  • But no provision In Sec. 72 for ‘resuming’, if and when Govt. needs it.
• Sec. 112 of the KLR Act
  • But, Sec. 112 of the KLR Act says as to ‘Apportionment of land value in cases of acquisition’.
  • Because of the “Legal Right conferred by Statute“ upon the former tenants of the plantation, they are entitled for certain compensation, when that land is required for the Govt..
  • In cases falling under Chapter II (pertaining to, tenants entitled for fixity, issuance of purchase certificate etc.) Section 72 deals with the right, title and interest of the land owners and intermediaries in respect of the holdings held by the cultivating tenants; and says -the land will be free from encumbrances created by the land-owners and intermediaries.
  • However, insofar as the cultivating tenant is concerned, an absolute right is vested with him to seek assignment (within ceiling limit) subject to the payment of purchase price – as stated in Section 72D. (See: Glen Leven Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022-6 Ker LT 439.)
  • No ‘authority’ is also named in any law to fix the compensation to be given to the former tenants, when the Govt. requires it.
• Therefore, it is said – Apportionment of land value in cases of ‘acquisition’.
  • Note:  It makes no difference (SUBSTANTIALLY, IN DETERMINING COMPENSATION) whether such a plantation land is “acquired” or not. Because, even if the land is not ‘acquired’, Govt. has to pay compensation for improvements to the former tenants (who holds the land by virtue of the “Legal Right conferred by Statute“, the KLR Act).

Apportionment’s of land value in cases of Acquisition

Sec. 112 of the KLR Act reads-

• “112. Apportionment’s of land value in cases of acquisition – (1) Where any land is acquired under the law for the time being in force providing for the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, the compensation awarded under such law in respect of the land acquired shall be apportioned among the landowner, intermediaries, cultivating tenant and the kudikidappukaran in the manner specified in this Section.
• (2) The compensation for any building or other improvements shall be awarded to the person entitled to such building or other improvements.
• (3) The kudikidappukaran shall be entitled to the value of the land occupied by his homestead or hut subject to a minimum of-
  • three cents in a city or major municipality; or
  • five cents in any other municipally; or
  • ten cents in a panchayat area or township.
• (4) The difference between the value of three cents or five cents or ten cents, as the case may be, and the value of the extent of the land occupied by the homestead or hut shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, be borne by the Government or the local authority or the company or other person on whose behalf the land is acquired.
• (5) The balance remaining after deducting the compensation referred to in Sub-section (2) and the value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut shall he apportioned among the landowner, the intermediaries and the cultivating tenant in proportion to the profits derivable by them from the land acquired immediately before such acquisition.
  • Explanation. – “Profits derivable from the land” shall be deemed to be equal to (i) in the case of a landowner, the rent which he was entitled to get from the tenant holding immediately under him; (ii) in the case of an intermediary, the difference between the rent which he was entitled to get from his tenant and the rent for which he was liable to his landlord; and (iii) in the case of a cultivating tenant, the difference between the net income and the rent payable by him; and the rent payable by the cultivating tenant and the intermediary for the purposes of this Explanation shall be as calculated under the provisions of this Act.
• (5A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (2) and (5), where there the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries in respect of the land acquired have vested in the Government under Section 72, –
  • (a) the compensation for any building or other improvements belonging to such landowner and intermediaries shall be awarded to the Government; and
  • (b) the balance remaining after deducting the compensation referred to in clause (a) and the value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut, if any, shall be apportioned between the cultivating tenant and the Government in proportion to the profits derivable by them from the land.
• Explanation. – “Profits derivable from the land” shall be deemed to be equal to-
  • in the case of the cultivating tenant, the difference between the net income immediately before the acquisition and the rent which he was liable to pay immediately before the date on which the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries have vested in the Government; and
  • in the case of the Government, such rent.
• (7) In this Section, “homestead” includes a dwelling house occupied by a person who is deemed to be a kudikidappukaran under Explanation IIA to clause (25) of Section 2.”

Apportionment depends upon rights on the date of acquisition

• Valia Raja v. Veeraraghava Iyer, 1961 Ker LT 103, it was held that the question of apportionment of compensation has to depend upon the rights of the parties on the date of the acquisition. Referrd to in: Varkey Thomas Vs. Annamma Abraham,  1969 Ker LT 903.

Glen Leven Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022-6 Ker LT 439

• In Glen Leven Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022-6 Ker LT 439, the question as to ‘rival claims raised by the cultivating tenant and landlord for compensation on acquisition’ arose. The land was leased out by landlords. The lease-rights came in the cultivating tenants by transfer. The Government contended that the tenant was a cultivating tenant and the land vested upon the Govt. under Sec. 72 KLR Act. Hence tenant alone would be entitled to get compensation for the improvements to be determined under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958, in view of Section 20(1) of the KLR Act.
• The landlords argued that the land was a plantation (over 30 acres) when it was (originally) leased, and therefore, they are entitled to claim exemption and benefits in the light of the exemption under clause (viii)  of Section 3 (1) of the KLR Act. Since there would be no fixity of tenure, it being a plantation, there would not be vesting of rights of the land owner in the Government. Hence, there should be the apportionment of the compensation between the lessor and the lessee and it should be decided in the acquisition proceedings.
• The single Judge dismissed the writ petition, ‘leaving open the liberty of the lessee as well as the landlords, to approach the civil court seeking relief against the Government, and also to resolve the inter se dispute by and between the tenant and the landlords’.
• The Division Bench, in appeal held that ‘land acquisition’ proceedings are to be initiated. It is pointed out that (even if it is a land vested in Govt.) there is no provision in Sec. 72 for ‘resuming’ if and when Govt. need it. The court also observed as under –
  • “31. On an analysis of the provisions of Section 72(1) of the Act, 1963, it is clear that when the Government notified the said provision with effect from 01.01.1970, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyirippus and holders karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13, and in respect of which certificates of purchase under sub-Section (2) of Section 59 have not been issued, vested in the Government.
  • 32. Therefore, it is clear from Section 72 that what is vested with the Government is the right, title and interest of the land owners and intermediaries in respect of the holdings held by the cultivating tenants. It is nothing but a legal fiction by which the interest held by a cultivating tenant in a property of a landlord or intermediary is protected from 01.01.1970 .
  • 34. On a conjoint reading of Sections 72 and 72A, it can be seen that vesting of rights in the Government contained under Section 72 is the rights held by the landlord and the intermediary in respect of holdings held by the cultivating tenants. However, the same will not, in any manner, interfere with the rights enjoyed by a cultivating tenant in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 1963.”
  • 42. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that Section 72 of Act, 1963 would only deal with the right, title and interest of the land owners and intermediaries in respect of the holdings held by the cultivating tenants free from encumbrances created by the land owners and intermediaries. However, the legal provisions discussed above would make it clear that insofar as the cultivating tenant is concerned, an absolute right is vested with him to seek assignment subject to the payment of purchase price in contemplation of Section 72D of the Act, 1963.
• While considering the right of landlord, it is pointed out (basing on the principle, or scheme of the KLR Act*^*) that the landlord may have right for compensation under Section 72BB. The Division Bench said-
  • “36. So also, sub-Section (1) of Section 72BB dealing with ‘the right of landlord to apply for assignment and compensation’ specifies that any landowner or intermediary, whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government, may apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenant and for the payment of the compensation due to him under Section 72A.”
• *^{*Note: 1. If plantation-lease-(leasing a land when plantation existed)-above-30-acre-}
  • ^{Sec. 72, 72 BB etc. will not apply (such land being excluded from Chapter II, under Sec. 3(1)(viii), KLR Act).}
• ^{2. In case of a plantation-lease-above-30-Acre-}
  • ^{on termination of the lease period, the land lord can resume the land, on the basis of his title; for, the tenant will not have fixity in such case, the land being exempted from the benefits of Chapter II (as per Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the KLR Act).}
• ^{3. The landlords of such plantation will get the benefits (under Sec. 81) and protection from ceiling limit that is stipulated under the provisions of Sec. 82, 83 etc. (that is, there will be no ceiling limit).}
• ^{4. In such a case, the right of landlord may be on a higher level or footing than the tenant (to get compensation).}
• ^{5. It cannot be compared with a plantation that is put up by the tenant. The tenants of such plantation will-}
  • ^{get fixity under Sec. 13 (though they will not get Purchase Certificate),}
  • ^{get the benefits and protection (under Sec. 81) from ceiling limit that is stipulated under the provisions of Sec. 82, 83 etc. (that is, there will be no ceiling limit).}
  • ^{In such a case, the right for compensation, if any, of the landlord will be nil or negligible.}
• The Division Bench, inter alia, on the above observations directed ‘the State and its officials to take proceedings for the acquisition of the land’.

Criticism on Glen Leven Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022-6 Ker LT 439

The Division Bench failed to consider–

• The right, title and interest of the land (above ceiling limit) ‘vest’ with the Government under Sec. 72. It is absolute. It is not a ‘fiction‘.
• In K. Jayaprakashan v. State of Kerala, 2023-3 KLT 541, it is observed as under:
  • “Section 72 of the Act deals with vesting of landlord’s rights in Government. As per sub-section (1) of Section 72 ….  all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 … shall, subject to the provisions of this section, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the said date”.
• In V.N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala (P.T. Raman Nayar, T.C.Raghavan, K.K.Mathew, JJ.) , AIR 1971 Ker 98, it is held as under:
  • “By Section 72 the rights of landlords whose rights have not been purchased by cultivating tenants vest in the Government free of all encumbrances on a date to be notified by the Government in that behalf -the date has been notified as the 1st January, 1970”
• The absolute nature of vesting is further clear from Sec. 72E and Sec. 112(5A).
•  The nature of this statutory ‘vesting in Govt’ (under Sec. 72) is further clear from – Sec. 72E (tenant has to pay rent for the unassigned land_{(e.g. exempted plantation land)} vested in Government under Sec. 72). Such payments are required in two occasions – (i) after vesting in Government for there is cultivating tenant and fixity of tenure and the tenant has not got his rights purchased under ‘Purchase Certificate’ and (ii) holding exempted-plantation land excess of ceiling limit.
• In Lakshmi v. Rama Iyer, 1992-1 ILR-Ker 398; 1991-2 KLT 897it is pointed out:
  • “Consequently the title and interest of the land-lord would vest in the Government on the appointed day that is, on 1-1-1970. Then as per S. 72Q the land owner would be entitled to recover rent accrued till 1-1-1970 only”.
• In Aru v. Nakunni (Padmanabhan, J.), 1987-1 KLT 177, it is held as under:
  • “Under S.72 of the Act all the right, title and interest of the land owners and intermediaries in respect of a holding held by a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 shall, subject to the various provisions of S.72, vest in the Government free of all encumbrances created by the land owners and intermediaries and subsisting on the date notified by the Government. ….. When once vesting has taken place there cannot be any further rights in any body. …. By assignment all such rights vest in the tenant”.
•  Sec. 112(5A) deals with unassaigned land (that is, no purchase certificate is given). Under this sub section land-value need not be given to the land-owner or the tenant over and above the “value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut” – that is, the actual area where the ‘homestead or hut’ is situated; whatever may be the area of land outside it.
• This provision is applied to lease-lands vested in Govt. under Sec. 72 and no purchase certificate is given (to the tenant)., in case of acquisition).
• Sec. 72B(2) KLR Act spells-out that a cultivating tenant will get Purchase Certificate for the extent below the ‘ceiling limit’ alone. That is, the tenant has no “absolute rights” above the ceiling limit.
• Plantation-lands, usually, involve Hundreds or Thousands of Acres of “excess” land. The assignment-possible-land (within ceiling limit) may be miniscule (7.5 acres or 15 acres). Therefore, the analogy drawn by the Bench (tenant has a right seek assignment) is not apt at all.
• When land vested in Govt. under Sec. 72 is acquired, in the light of Sec. 112(5A) land-value need not be given to the land-owner or the tenant, over and above the “value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut” – that is, the actual area where the ‘homestead or hut’ is situated; whatever may be the area of land outside it.
• The aforesaid provision of law in the KLR Act is legislated following Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution which says that the State need not pay compensation to the land owners (when land is acquired) above the ‘ceiling limit‘.
• The rights of ‘tenants’ of Plantations, to continue in the land till the plantation exists, after vesting the land with Govt., is a ‘Legal Right conferred by Statute’. It is not Tenancy – for no landlord-tenant relation with the Govt. It is not a Grant or Licence/Permission – for such rights arise from a contract (express or implied). Therefore, it can be termed only as a “Legal Right conferred by Statute“, the KLR Act.
• It goes without saying – If no compensation is payable to the land-owners above the ceiling limit, it need not be given to tenants.
• It is most unjustifiable to confer undue rights or benefits to the plantation-tenants (majority are BIG Companies) which had not been given to Maharaja of Travancore (whose 191 acres of lands in Thiruvananthapuram – above the ceiling limit, 15 acres – in the City was ‘mercilessly’ taken under the Orders of the Land Board Trivandrum, No. LB(B)2-18919/70, dated 15.01.1972). It is a sheer fact that lands of thousands of middleclass property owners was also harshly taken by under the provisions of the Act. (Note: Only limited right to continue the specified plantation-crop alone is given by the ‘exemption’; and, according to law, in case the land is ‘converted’, the exemption-benefit would be lost.)

No Land value to be given for the “excess” land (Beyond Ceiling Limit)

From the following words in Sect. 112, it is beyond doubt that no Land value to be given for the entire land and it is limited to a portion.

• “building or other improvements“
• “land occupied by the homestead or hut”
• “any building or other improvements“.

It is true, “exemption” is given to plantation, to hold land over and above ceiling limit. It is only a statutory permission to continue, subject to conditions. It will be lost when it is “fragmented” or the crop is abandoned. As stated elsewhere, it is also most unjustifiable to confer undue rights or benefits to the plantation owners or tenants (majority are BIG Companies) which had not been given to thousands of middleclass property owners whose property had been harshly sized or expropriated under the provisions of the KLR Act.

The Govt. is Entitled Reasonable ‘Rent‘ and Land Tax (for previous leasehold land)

The land being vest in Govt., it can collect reasonable ‘rent’ (for the unassigned land_{(e.g. exempted plantation land)} vested in Government under Sec. 72) . Sec. 72E reads as under:

• 72E. Rent of holdings vested in Government but not assigned to cultivating tenants. – Where in respect of any holding or part thereof, the right, title and interest of the landowner and intermediaries have vested in the Government under Section 72 and the cultivating tenant is not entitled to the assignment of such right, title and interest by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 72, the cultivating tenant shall be liable to pay to the Government the rent payable under this Act from the date of vesting under Section 72.

With respect to payment of tax it is stated as under in Sec. 72S:

• 72S. Liability for assessment alter the date of vesting under Section 72. (1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, where the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of a holding have vested in the Government under Section 72, the cultivating tenant of that holding shall be liable to pay the basic tax payable in respect of that holding under the said Act and other taxes and cesses due in respect of that holding.
• (2) In the case of a holding or part of a holding in respect of which an application for resumption under the provisions of this Act is rejected, the cultivating tenant shall be liable to pay the basic tax and other taxes and cesses in respect of such holding or part of the holding, as the case may be, with effect on and from the date notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 72.

• “It may well be that the legislature thought that it will not be fair or proper to deny the benefit of fixity of tenure to lessees who might have taken on lease extensive parambas or waste land and might have in course of time by their hard toil developed them into plantations.”

When Civil Court can Interfere

• Even when a tribunal is provided for redressal of remedies, the civil courts will have jurisdiction to examine the allegation of non-compliance of the provisions of the statute or of any of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. If the challenge is only as to the ‘erroneous’ character of the order, other than ‘jurisdictional error’, the suit will not be maintainable. (South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt.  Ltd.  2019-4 CivCC 150 (SC); 2019-3 CurCC 370(SC); 2019-11 Scale 33).
• When an order is passed by a statutory Land-Tribunal violating a mandatory provision, the order will be illegal, without jurisdiction and a nullity. The civil courts which are courts of “general jurisdiction” can decide whether a tribunal or authority exercising statutory jurisdiction has acted in excess or beyond the statutory powers. The civil courts can interfere when the order of the statutory tribunal or authority is really not an order under the Act conferring jurisdiction on it. In other words, if a tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the Act but in violation of its provisions (Firm Seth Radha Kishan v. Ludhiana Municipality AIR 1963 SC 1547), the jurisdiction of the civil court will not be excluded. The ultimate decision can be challenged, in spite of finality and exclusionary clauses (or provision for appeal/revision), since the jurisdiction had been assumed by the tribunal, where it did not exist, and the decision was not a decision under the Act, but a nullity. (Muhammad Haji v. Kunhunni Nair, AIR  1993 Ker 104).

A purchase certificate shall not bind one who was not party to the proceedings

In Thayukutty v. Manikandan, the Kerala High Court (2023) held as under:

• “Doubtlessly, a purchase certificate shall not bind a party, who is not party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, having better title over the property covered by the purchase certificate.”

Civil court to declare and decide on title

Civil court alone has the jurisdiction to make the declaration and decide on title.  

• In Joginer Singh v. Pushpa, AIR 1969 P& H 397 it was pointed out – all civil matters have to be settled by the civil Courts unless their jurisdiction is taken away either expressly or by necessary implication.
• Title to the property is not decided by the TLB (Harikumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 44 (Para 9) Jagadeesachandran Nair v. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584 (para 11); Both decisions were referred to in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369 (para 54).

Taluk Land Board cannot initiate action of its own, otherwise than directed by Land Board

• State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew, AIR1996 SC 1009:
• “Section 85(7) provides that where any person fails to file the statement, the Land Board shall intimate the fact to the Taluk Land Board and thereupon the Taluk Land Board shall, after necessary enquiries, determine the extent and other particulars of the land or lands which is or are to be surrendered. In other words, the statute prescribes liability on the person who owes or hold the land in excess of the ceiling limit and if such a person fails to file the statement in accordance with law, the Board is enjoined to proceed against such person.”

Whether Private Land or Government Land – Outside jurisdiction of TLB

• The Kerala High Court, in Jagadeesachandran Nair Vs. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584, refused to call for the TLB proceedings in the Writ Petition filed by the State of Kerala before the High Court for calling for the records of the Taluk Land Board constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act to quash certain proceedings, claiming that the large extent of land held by the respondent was liable to be forfeited under the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1950. The State contended that there was gross violation of the land laws and FERA. The State also asserted a fraud on the Constitution of India, warranting immediate action in public interest and based on public policy as enjoined under Article 296 of the Constitution.
• Analysing this decision it is pointed out in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd, v. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) Ker LT 369, that in Jagadeesachandran’s case it was noticed that the question whether the land was a private land or a government land was totally outside the scope of the proceedings pending before the TLB.
• Title to the property is not decided by the TLB (Harikumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 44 (Para 9) Jagadeesachandran Nair v. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584 (para 11); Both decisions were referred to in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369 (para 54).

Ancillary relief could also be granted by the civil court

In law, when the main relief, title declaration, is cognisable by civil court the ancillary relief would be immaterial for determination of proper forum; and in such cases the ancillary relief could also be granted by the civil court (Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar, 1969 All. 526). 

In Gurucharansingh v. Gurdayal Kaur, AIR 1982 Raj  91, it is held as under:

• “Once the suit is maintainable for the main relief in the civil court then there is no bar for the civil court to grant all possible reliefs flowing from the same cause of action. The determination of the question as to which out of the several reliefs arising from the same cause of action is the main relief will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The High Court quoted the following principles laid down in Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar, 1969 All. 526, FB:

• “(1) Where, on the basis of a cause of action, the main relief is cognizable by a revenue court, the suit would be cognizable by the revenue court only. The fact that the ancillary reliefs claimed are cognizable by civil court would be immaterial for determining the proper forum for the suit;
• (2) Where, on the basis of a cause of action, the main relief is cognizable by the civil court, the suit would be cognizable by the civil court only and the ancillary reliefs, which could be granted by the revenue court may also be granted by the civil court.”

Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar, 1969 All. 526 is referred to several decisions. It include the following recent decisions –

• Jagir Singh v. Kulwant Kaur, 2023-1 CurCC 291;
• Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Jitendra Pratap Singh, 2021-7 ADJ 651;
• 2021-6 AllLJ 91; Vijay Pal v. Rajendra Kumar, 2021-4 ADJ 182; 2021-4 AllLJ 351;
• Shanti @ Satiya v. Phoolan Dullaiya, AIR 2016 All  137

Is the Tenant of a Plantation a “Cultivating Tenant“?

• Yes.
• Sec. 2(8) defines cultivating tenant as under:
• “Cultivating tenant“ means a tenant who is in actual possession of, and is entitled to cultivate, the land comprised in his holding.”

Can Purchase-Certificate be given to Plantation-Land, over & above Ceiling-Limit?

• No.
• Because, under Sec. 72B(2) a cultivating tenant is entitled to get assigned the area within the ceiling limit under Sec. 82 alone.

Sec. 72B reads as under:

• “72B. Cultivating tenants right to assignment. – (1) The cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Section 72, shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest: ….. ….
• (2) The provisions of Section 82 shall, so far as may be, apply to the calculation of the ceiling area for the purposes of the proviso to Sub-section (1);
• (3) (4) (5)

Is Purchase Certificate (inaccurate on its face, or fraud, for excess of the ceiling area) Conclusive Proof?

• No.

Our Apex Court considered this matter in Chettian Veetil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board, AIR 1979 SC 1573; 1980 1 SCC 499 (P.N. Shinghal & O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.) where Purchase Certificate was issued, excess of the ceiling area, as under:

• “27. It would thus appear that even though the certificate of purchase issued under sub-section (1) of Section 72-K 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 proof is inaccurate on its face, or fraud can be shown (Halsburys – 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. Tribunals finding suffers from any procedural error. What sub-section (2) of Section 72-K provides is an irrebuttable presumption of law, and it may will be regarded as a rule 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 85 (5) after taking into consideration the “conclusive” evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase according to Section 72-K (2) as far as it goes.”

It is also noteworthy (as stated above) that a purchase certificate shall not bind one, who was not party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, having better title over the property covered by the purchase certificate (Thayukutty v. Manikandan, the Kerala High Court (2023).

Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.

In Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283, it is pronounced that the tenants who have not approached the Land  Tribunal and established rights as “cultivating tenant” are not entitled to avail benefits on “Fixity of Tenure”, under Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

It is pointed out – when a title claim is raised by the Government or the Devaswom, the person who claims to be a cultivating tenant –

• “will have to first prove their claim of being a cultivating tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure, under the provisions of the KLR Act through a proper process of law.“

It is held as under:

• “This is pertinent because, under Section 72B(3) of the KLR Act, it is legally obligated on every cultivating tenant, entitled to assignment of right, title and interest in respect of any property, to apply to the Land Tribunal, within whose jurisdiction that the property is situated, within two years from the date of vesting of such title and interest.”

It is based upon the following principles of law:

• A tenant cannot declare himself to be a cultivating-tenant and claim benefits under KLR Act.
• Land Tribunal is the sole authority to determine if someone is a Cultivating Tenant or not.
• The TLB, deals with exemption on the ground of plantation, excess land issues etc., and determines the land to be surrendered.

Cultivating Tenants (‘Entitled to Assignment’) are Obligated to Apply LT

Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283, it was laid down that only cultivating tenants, entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, would be “entitled to hold possession over the property and to resist action under the KLC Act”.

Sec. 72B provides for cultivating tenant’s rights to get assignment by purchase certificate (through LT) – within ceiling area. A Tenant was “obligated to apply” for the purchase certificate within 2 years from 1-1-1970.

Sec. 73B(3) reads as under:

• “(3) Any cultivating tenant entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of a holding or part of a holding under Sub­section (1) may apply to the Land Tribunal within whose jurisdiction such holding or part is situate within two years from the date of vesting of such right, title and interest in the Government under Section 72, or such further time as may be allowed by the Government in this behalf, for such assignment to him.”

The Legal Basis of Balanoor Plantations case

• A tenant cannot declare himself to be a cultivating-tenant and avail benefits – the competent statutory authority (for the same) under the KLR Act is the Land Tribunal.

It is similar to the principle – title to the property is not decided by the TLB (Harikumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 44 (Para 9) Jagadeesachandran Nair v. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584 (para 11); Both decisions were referred to in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369 (para 54). [See also: Ganapathy Acharya v. Bhaskaran (TLV Iyer, J.), ILR 1993-3 (Ker) 736; 1993 2 KLT 962.]

Extent of Land that for which a Purchase Certificate can be issued by LT

If a cultivating tenant (of a plantation land) possessed land at or above the ceiling limit, no purchase certificate can be issued to him, from the plantation property in question. 

If a tenant holds some land, he will receive a Purchase Certificate for the extent – equal to the Ceiling Limit minus the land he already possesses.

If such a tenant holds land at or above the ceiling limit (and, for that reason,  no purchase certificate can be given with respect to the plantation property), proceedings are to be promulgated, or an order is to be issued, by the Land Tribunal  to that effect, if it finds that he is a cultivating tenant of that plantation. This proceedings also has to be presented with the lease-agreement and other documents, before the Taluk Land Board, for getting the order of exemption.  

Tenant has to pay Rent to the Government

In any case, the tenants who are found to be cultivating tenants entitled to hold the plantation tenancy land, under exemption, have to pay rent to the Government as provided under Sec. 72E for the unassigned land_{(e.g. exempted plantation land)} vested in Government under Sec. 72 (and the Land Tribunal has to fix the rent under subsection (5)(h) of Sec. 72F).  If such land is acquired by the Government  compensation for improvements alone need be paid to the tenant [and no land-value be given, under Sec. 112(5A)]. 

Effect of Travancore Govt. Leases after Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061

The Proclamation of 1040 reads thus:

“PROCLAMATION

By His Highness the Maha Rajah of Travancore, issued under date the 2nd June 1865, corresponding to the 21st Edavam 1040.

Whereas we earnestly desire that the possession of landed as well as other property in Our territory should be as secure as possible; and whereas We are of opinion that, with this view, Sirkar Pattom lands can be placed on a much better footing than at present so as to enhance their value; We are pleased to notify to Our ryots

• Istly- that the Sirkar hereby and for ever surrenders, for the benefit of the people all optional power over the following classes of lands, whether wet, garden or dry, and whether included in the Ayacut accounts or registered since:
• Ven Pattom, Vettolivoo Pattom, Maraya Pattom, Olavoo Pattom, Mara Pattom, and all such Durkast Pattom the tax of which is understood to be fixed till the next Survey and Assessment;
• 2ndly. that the ryots holding these lands may regard them fully as private, heri-table, saleable, and otherwise transferable, property;
• 3rdly. accordingly, the sales, mortgages, & e., of these lands will hence-forward be valid; may be effected on stamped cadjans and will be duly registered; the lands may be sold for arrears of tax, in execution of decrees of Courts and such other legitimate purposes, and may also be accepted as security by the Sirkar as well as by private individuals;
• 4thly. that the holders of the lands in question may rest assured that they may enjoy them undisturbed so long as the appointed assessment is paid;
• 5thly. that the said holders are hence-forth at full liberty to lay out labour and capital on their lands of the aforesaid description to any extent they please, being sure of continued and secure possession;
• 6thly. that the aforesaid description of lands will be resumable by the Sirkar like Jenmom and other private lands only for purely public purposes, as for instance, for making roads, canals, public buildings, & e., and when resumed for such purposes compensation will be paid by the Sirkar not for improvements only as here to fore, but equal, to the full market value of such lands;
• 7thly. that the foregoing concessions are not however to be understood to affect in any way the rights of the Sirkar to regulate the land tax, to resume escheats, to confiscate the property of criminals, and generally such rights as have heretofore been exercised upon all property in general;
• 8thly. that it is to be understood that when Pattom land being a portion of a holding, is transferred to a pauper, with the view of defrauding the Sirkar of the tax due to it, the Sirkar will have the right of apportioning the tax so as to prevent loss of revenue; and,
• 9thly. (Repealed by Proclamation dated the 5th Karkadakam 1059). (Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86 : Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez Vs Albert Fernandez, AIR 1971 Ker 168; 1971 Ker LT 1.)

Royal Proclamation of 1061 (1886) Brings in Further Radical Changes

Paragraph 9 of the Proclamation of 1061 says, with reference to Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, as regards Pandarapattam lands, as under:

• “these lands were originally the absolute property of Government, and the tenants were mere tenants-at-will; but, by the Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, Government generously waived all right to these lands, and declared them to be the private, hereitable, saleable property of the holders.”

Section 22 of the Settlement Proclamation of 1061 (1886) made radical changes in land tenure.

Those changes were:

• (1)   no debt shall be recognised as due to the holder;
• (2) no interest shall be deducted from the Pattom on such debt;  
• (3) no reduction of debt or a corresponding enhancement of the Sirkar demand shall be made when such properties were transferred by sale.
• The properties held on the tenures in question shall be recognised as so many favourably assessed lands or Inams and confirmed to the holders as such.

Clause 7 of Section 24 of the Proclamation provided as under:

• “There shall be no further interference on the part of the Government with these free holds, except such as might be necessary for the punctual realization of the quit rent payable”.(Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86.)

Now a question arises: What is the impact of 1040 and 1061 (1886) Proclamations over the ‘Government Land Leases’ made after 1061 (1886)? Do such leased lands qualify as “estate” under Article 31A of the Constitution?

The legitimate answer is that the lands leased out (by the Government) after 1061 (1886) do not acquire the rights of ‘permanency of tenure’ or attain the ‘proprietary interest’ conferred by the Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061. If such rights are axiomatically conferred as a matter of course, the result would be that the Government cannot ‘lease’ lands (after the Proclamations), for, the lease character would be lost at the moment it is made.

In Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez (five Judge Bench), 1971 Ker LT 1, AIR 1971 Ker 168 (Per PT Raman Nayar, CJ, T Krishnamoorthy Iyer, P Unnikrishna Kurup, JJ.), concluded that the land covered by the Royal Proclamations of 1040 and 1061 were “estates” falling under Art. 31A of the Constitution. It was on the finding that the Proclamation “secured permanency of tenure”, and “proprietary interest” in the soil. It was observed as under:

• “7. It is impossible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff in this case that,even after the Proclamation of 1040, the holders of these lands had no proprietary interest whatsoever in the soil and remained tenants in the strict sense of that term, with only the right of enjoyment, the only difference being that they secured permanency of tenure, the Government still remaining the full and absolute proprietor of the soil.”

Therefore, there is a clear difference between leases made before and after the Proclamations, and the rights conferred by the Proclamations do not apply to leases made after them.

‘Pandarappattoms’ before 1061 (1886) were Recorded as “Thettoms”

The ‘pandaravakappattoms’ before 1061 (1886) to which benefits of proprietary rights were conferred under the Proclamations (1040 and 1061) were recorded in 1910 Travancore Settlement Register as “Thettoms” (such as Devaswom Thettom, Namboori Thettom etc.)

• Note: When those properties (upon which Brhamins or Devaswoms had pandarappattom rights) were sold or leased, they were termed in the transfer-deeds as “Devaswom Thettom”, “Namboori Thettom”.

---

Also Read: Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board

End Notes

Relevant provisions of KLR Act, in a Nutshell

Section	Provisions in a Nutshell
Chap. II  3(1)	Exemptions – (i) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to – (viii) Tenancies of plantations exceeding 30 acres. “Provided that the provisions of this chapter, other than sections 53 to 72S, shall apply to tenancies in respect of agricultural lands which are treated as plantations under sub clause (c) of clause (44) of Section 2”.
7 E	Persons acquired lands (before 2005 amendment in KLR Act) for consideration below 1 Hec. 61 Are 87 Sq.m. (4 acre) will be deemed to be tenants .
13	Fixity: “Every tenant, shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding.”
22	Landlord desiring to resume any land shall apply to the Land Tribunal.
31	Fair rent determined by Land Tribunal.
51B	Landlord not to enter on land surrendered or abandoned by the tenant.  Contravention is made punishable.
54(1) 55 57 57 (3) 57 (6) 61	54(1). A cultivating tenant (to purchase the right) has to apply LT. 55. Purchase price is fixed by LT (on fair rent u/s. 31) to be paid u/s. 59 57. The LT, after enquiries, passes orders determining purchase price. (3). The Land Tribunal allows the purchase of the land it determines. (6). The Land Tribunal forwards  orders to the Land Board. 61. Tenant to pay rent (under orders of LT) pending proceedings.
59	When Sec. 54 application is allowed (by the LT), the purchase price (determined u/s. 57 by the LT) shall be deposited with the Land Tribunal to the credit of the Land Board and issue of certificate – to cultivating tenant.
72	Sec. 72 provides for automatic vesting of lease-properties held by cultivating tenants in Govt.  ILR 2010(2) Ker. 845.  72(1) says: Holdings upon which tenanat entilted fixity under sec. 13 vest in govt.
72B	Provides for ‘cultivating tenants’ rights to get assignment  – purchase certificate (through LT) within ceiling area as provided under sub-section (2) ; (apply within 2 years from 1-1-1970). Effect of non-applying – See: Balanur Plantations case. 2018(3) KLT 283.
72D	The cultivating tenant has to pay the purchase price to the Government on the assignment to him of the right, title and interest of the landowner. (If the extent of land is one hectare or below, he shall not be liable to pay.)
72E	Such tenant is liable to pay rent to the Government (for the unassigned land (e.g. exempted plantation land) vested in Government under Sec. 72) .
72C	Provides for suo moto action by LT. (No time limit). Rule 5 of the Vesting & Assignment Rules provides – LT may suo moto – notwithstanding no application – assign to cultivating tenant. (See  S.72C also).
72K	LT shall issue purchase certificate.  It shall be conclusive proof of assignment.
74	Prohibition of future tenancies.
Chap. III  81	Exemption from ceiling and excess for Govt. lands, private forests, plantations, industrial or commercial undertaking etc. Proviso – There will be exemption (as plantation, land given to educational institution, trust etc.) on Government lands, given under grant, lease etc. See: HMT (Machine Tools) Limited v. Taluk Land Board, 2009 (3) KLJ 110; MT Joseph v.  State of Kerala, AIR 1974 Ker 28.
82	Ceiling area – 5/10 standard acres.
83	No person can hold or possess excess of ceiling area. (Holding is by tenant.)  It is a total bar. (Note:  plantations, industrial area etc. are exempted.) Apply to tenant also. 1980 KLT 259 (Gopalan Nair Vs. State), 1976 KLT 306  (Thomas Mariamma Vs. TLB), Raghunath Laxman Wani v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 2137) The policy of the Act – no person –“be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area.” Raghunath Laxman Wani v. State of Maharashtra, 1971-3 SCC 391, Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal v. Mohan Lal Punchand Tatbed, 1982-1 SCC 680, State of U.P v. Civil Judge, Nainital, AIR 1987 SC 16, State Vs. Puliyangattu, 2008(1) KLJ 571.
84	Certain transfers – void.
85(1)	Surrender excess.
85(2)	Owners and Tenants of plantation (who owns and hold properties) should furnish ceiling return to Land Board before March31, 1971, before the Land Board (including lands exempted under S. 81). Effect of non-filing: See – Balanoor Plantations case – 2018(3) KLT 283.State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew, AIR 1996 SC 1009.  According to S. 3(1) (viii), “tenancies of plantations exceeding 30 acres” is exempted from Chapter II. Therefore, the landlord can recover such plantation lands after the period of tenancy. Such landlords also had to file a ceiling return within the time stipulated.
85(3)	Excess shall be surrendered. Note: Tenant must have approached the LT (with respect to each plantation, if he has more plantations) (He cannot declare himself a tenant) It is clear from the following provisions: 54(1) – A cultivating tenant has to apply to LT (or the purchase of right, title and interest.) 55 – Purchase price and fair rent fixed by LT 57 – LT after giving notice and enquiries, pass orders (on the application for the purchase of right, title and interest). 57(3) – LT allots the purchase land it determines. 57(6) – The Land Tribunal forwards a copy of orders to the Land Board. 61 – Cultivating tenant to pay rent (under orders of LT) 59 – The purchase price shall be deposited with the LT (to the credit of the Land Board) and issue of certificate – to cultivating tenant. It is the principle applied in the Balanoor case. Note: (i) The sub-section (3) itself says as to the settlement of claims for resumption and purchase of the right, title, and interest of the landowner by the cultivating tenant, (ii) LT is the only authority to determine tenancy (Land Board cannot determine it), and (iii) it is clear that even if it is a plantation-exemption-land (beyond ceiling limit), the tenant has to file petition under Section 54 – for fixing Purchase price and fair rent fixed by LT and for allotting the land under section 57(3) and for effecting the payments of ‘rent’ and ‘purchase price’(to the credit of the Land Board)  under sec. 61 and 59.
85(3A)	The person bound to file a statement under sub-section (2) (that is, Owners and Tenants – having land in excess of the ceiling area)  shall, within a period of three months from the date of final settlement or purchase, file a statement before the Land Board, and the provisions of the said Sub-section shall, as far as may he, apply in regard to the particulars to be contained in such statement, the calculation of the excess land and for the procedure for the surrender of the same.
85(5)	On receipt of the statement under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3A), the Land Board shall transfer the statement to such Taluk Land Board and such Taluk LandBoard shall determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered.
85(7)	Whereon a person fails to file statement under 85(2), LB shall intimate TLB  –  TLB shall determine land to be surrendered. It is obvious – The LB can intimate TLB as to non-filing, on the basis of the records it obtained under Sec. 57(6) and 59. That is, those tenants who are not entitled to get a purchase certificate also have to file an application under Sec. 54(1) and 85(2) or (3A). Effect of non-filing: See – Balanur Plantations case (With respect to Sec. 72B application) – 2018(3) KLT 283. Statute prescribes liability on the person who owes or hold the land in excess of the ceiling limit to file a statement:  State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew, AIR 1996 SC 1009. [TLB not to do, suomotu, without direction from LB. 1980 KLT 120, referred to in 2019(1) KLT 985.]
85A	File ceiling return within March  2, 1973 before Land Board..
86(1)	On determination of the extent to be surrendered under S. 85- Excess vests in Govt. and Taluk Land Board shall issue an order accordingly.
86(3)	Where any person fails to surrender as demanded, the TLB may order an officer to take possession
86(4)	Where any land, vests in the Govt, under s. 86(1) (including that of cultivating tenant) the ownership of such land shall vest in the Govt.
86(6)	Nothing applies to property of Govt. under KLC Act.
87 Exp. II	If a person gets a portion of plantation-land on converion/ fragmentation (sale/transfer) of an exempted-plantation-land, that converted extent will be added to his account in determining his ceiling limit. That is, the exemption will be lost for that portion. (Mathew K Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, 2018-4 KLT 913)

Read Connected Blogs:

• Freehold Property in Law
• What is Patta or Pattayam?
• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Grant in Law

---

---

• Civil Procedure & CPC
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Power of attorney
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• Stamp Act
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Title and Possession
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Civil Procedure – General
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities will not Confer ‘Title’
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Evidence Act – General
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• Sec. 65B
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Documents
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Contract Act
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Easement
• What is Easement?
• Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• Religious issues
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General Features
• Bye Laws Fundamental
• Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
• Societies and Branches
• Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
• Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
• How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
• Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
• Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
• Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
• Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
• Court Interference in Election Process
• Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
• State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs
• Law on Meetings: An Overview

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
• What is Trust in Indian Law?
• Public & Private Trusts in India.
• Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
• Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
• Dedication and Vesting
• Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
• Vesting of Property in Trusts
• Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Trustees and Management
• Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
• Alienation of Public Trust Property
• Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
• Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
• Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Religious Trusts & Trustees
• Philosophy of Idol Worship
• Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
• Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
• Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
• Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
• Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
• General
• State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions