Government is the OWNER of All Leasehold-Plantation-Lands in Kerala.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Key takeaways

  • Plantation-tenancy-lands (plantation, developed by the landlord) above 30 acres are exempted from Chapter II of the KLR Act, 1963. Therefore, tenants of such plantation-tenancy-lands are not entitled to benefits under Chapter II, such as Fixity of Tenure (to the tenants), Purchase Certificate within the ceiling limit, etc.
  • Tenancy-lands where Plantation is developed by the tenant (above or below 30 acres) are not exempted from Chapter II. Therefore, tenants of such Plantation lands are entitled to benefits under Chapter II, such as Fixity of Tenure (to the tenants), purchase certificate within the ceiling limit, etc.
  • Both such Plantation lands (plantation, developed by the landlord or tenant) vest in the Government under Sec. 72.
  • Both such Plantation lands are exempted from provisions as to the ceiling limit (under Sec. 81, in Chapter III)
  • Government Need Not Pay ‘Land-Value’, as such, if such Lands are Acquired.
  • A tenant who got ‘fixity’ over such land cannot ‘sell’ it as his absolute property.
  • A purchase certificate cannot be given by the LT for land beyond the ceiling limit.
  • Section 81(4) “permits” use of the land not exceeding 5% of the extent of such holding for floriculture, dairy farms, hotels, restaurants, etc.
  • Note: •➧1. The ‘vesting in Govt’ under Sec. 72 is absolute.
    It 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) and Sec. 112(5A)(a) (land-value need not be given to the land-owner, in case of acquisition). Sec. 72F(5)(h) [Land Tribunal to fix the rent stated in Sec. 72E]
                •➧2. Sec. 72B(2) KLR Act provides that a cultivating tenant will get a Purchase Certificate for the extent below the ‘ceiling limit’ alone.
                •➧3. The provisions of the KLR Act are 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‘.
  • Note: 1. Section 81(1) exempts Government lands from the provisions of Chapter III. The Proviso says that 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. 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.

Abstract

Analysis of Exemption under S. 3(1)(viii), KLR Act

  • If tenant raised plantation on bare land leased –
  • Such tenants 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.
    • Such lands vest in Govt. under Sec. 72 also.

Chapter I , KLR Act

  • Chapter II of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 pertains (mainly) to
    • ‘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 etc.; and
  • Chapter II shall not apply [under Sec. 3(1) ] to
    • leases-lands belonging to or vested in the Govt,
    • Leases of private forests,
    • tenancies of plantations exceeding 30 acres, etc.

Chapter III, KLR Act

  • Chapter III pertains, inter alia, to
    • ceiling limit,
    • surrender,
    • vesting of excess land in Govt. etc.; and
  • Chapter III shall not apply [under Sec. 81(1) ] to
    • lands owned or held by the Government,
    • private forests,
    • plantations, etc.

Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India

  • The provisions of the KLR Act as regards ‘vesting’, ‘excess land’ etc., are legislated predicated upon Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution which states that the State need not pay compensation to the former land owners (when land is acquired) above the ‘ceiling limit‘.
  • Proviso to Article 31A(1) reads as under:
    • “Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof.”

1. S. 3(1)(viii) deals with exemption of ‘Plantation-Tenancy’ (plantation, developed by the landlord), above 30 acres.

  • S. 3(1)(viii), exempt from Chapter II –
    • plantation-tenancy (plantation, developed by the landlord) above 30 acres.
    • That is, such plantation-tenancy-land, above 30 acres, should have been a plantation when it was leased.
    • In other words, such plantation-tenancy-land, above 30 acres, must have been developed as plantation by the landlord.

Thus, if tenant has raised plantation on bare land leased, it is not excluded (from the benefits under Chapter II offered to Tenants) by the Exemption under S. 3(1)(viii).

  • The tenants (who put up plantation on the bare land) have the rights and benefits provided under Chapter II – such as
    • fixity under Sec. 13 and
    • vesting in Government under Sec. 72.
    • (But not purchase certificate under Sec. 72B, for it is not allowable above ceiling limit.)

2. S. 3(1)(viii) provides benefit (fixity under Sec. 13) to

  • plantation-tenancy-land below 30 acres.
  • See: Rev. Fr. Jerome Fernandes v. Be Be Rubber Estate, 1972 KLT 613; Poddar Plan. Ltd v. Thekkemariveettil Madhavi Amma, 2014 1 ILR(Ker) 813; 2013 4 KLJ 781; 2014 1 KLT 439 .
  • Therefore:
    • Contract applies to termination of tenancy, above 30 acre  plantation-tenancy-land (land must have been a plantation when it was leased).
    • Land lord is entitled Sec. 81 exemption over such plantation.

Who is the OWNER of the (exempted) Leasehold-Plantation Lands in Kerala

It is the State, in case of lands beyond the ceiling-limit.

Following are the relevant provisions:

  • Sec. 13 – It proclaims that every tenant shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding.
  • Sec. 72 – It declares that the title of a land is vested in Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon, if-
    • (i) it is held by a cultivating tenant and
    • (ii) the tenant is entitled to fixity of tenure.
  • Sec. 72E – The cultivating tenant shall pay rent to the Government from 01.01.1970 – for the unassigned land(e.g. exempted plantation land) vested in Government under Sec. 72],    
  • Sec.72F(5)(h) – Land Tribunal to fix the rent stated in Sec. 72E] and
  • Sec. 72B – It enables ‘cultivating tenants’ to get the assignment of leasehold land within ceiling area (by purchase certificate provided in Sec. 72K).
  • Sec. 81(1)(e) – Exempts plantation from ceiling limits.
  • Section 81(4) allows the person holding a plantation to use land “not exceeding 5% of the extent of such holding for floriculture, medicinal plants, for conducting dairy farms, for establishing hotels or resorts or other tourism projects, etc.
  • Section 87, Explanation II – It 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 will be lost; and the converted land will be taken for considering the ceiling limit.
  • Sec. 112(5A) – When a land is acquired, compensation for any building or other improvements belonging to the land owner shall be awarded to the Government; and when compensation is given to the tenant, no ‘value of the land’ be given for the entire land].
  • Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India: The provisions of the KLR Act as regards ‘vesting’, ‘excess land’ etc. are legislated predicating upon Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution which states that the State need not pay compensation to the former land owners (when land is acquired) above the ‘ceiling limit‘

Sec. 72A – Compensation to land owner for vesting under Sec. 72 in Govt. – No right remains with (erstwhile owner) thereafter.

It is 16 times fare rent for land plus (+) value of structures of land owner plus (+) half value of timber trees. Note: Same rate under Sec. 55 & 72D(2) Land above ceiling limit payment is only under Sec. 88 – on surrendering land. (It is paid by Govt.)

  • Sec. 72D – Cultivating tenant to pay purchase price (for getting assignment).
  • Sec. 72D(1A)- No purchase price is land below One Hect.
  • Sec. 72D(2)  – Purchase price to Govt. – 16 times fare rent for land plus (+) value of structures of land owner plus (+) half value of timber trees) Note: Same rate under Sec. 72A & 55

Vesting in  Government u/s. 72 is independent of issuance of Purchase Certificate

The rights of the landlord would vest in the Government, under Sec. 72 KLR Act. A tenant is free to apply for and obtain Purchase Certificate within the Ceiling Limit under Sect. 59(2) and 72B or 72C. from such property. Vesting of lease property in Government under Sec. 72 is independent of issuance of Purchase Certificate. In Perumal Smaraka Nidhi v. Harrisons Malayalam Limited (RFA No. 336/2011; dt. 31. 01. 2013; K.M. Joseph, J.) held –

  • The rights of the landlord would vest in the Government, under Sec. 72 KLR Act.
  •  Sec. 72 would appear to contemplate vesting when there is no certificate of purchase issued under Sec. 59 (2).
  • If no certificate of purchase has been issued under sub Sec. (2) of Sect. 59 (irrespective of whether the tenants have applied), under Section 72, there will be vesting, if other conditions are satisfied.

Plantation Land Cannot be Assigned to a Tenant

  • From the above, it is clear:
    1. Plantation-tenancy-lands above 30 acre are not exempted from Chapter II; and are exempted from ceiling limit (under Chapter III).
    2. Tenants who hold the plantation-tenancy-lands are entitled to fixity of tenure under Sec. 13.
    3. As the tenants who hold the plantation land are cultivating tenants, such lands are vested in Government [according to Sec. 72].
    4. The plantation land, above ceiling limit [under Sec. 72B], cannot be assigned (by the Land Tribunal) to a tenant. (Note: No rider to Sec. 72B and 72C, by way of proviso or otherwise, exempting plantation.)
  • Therefore, the answer to the question – who is the OWNER of the (exempted) Leasehold-Plantation Lands in Kerala – is that the Government of Kerala is the OWNER. (See: Perumal Smaraka Nidhi vs M/S Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., 31. 01. 2013)

2. Provisions as to Fixity, Purchase Certificate,  Plantation-Exemption, Ceiling Area, etc.

  • 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- …. ….. ….. “
  • 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.”
  • Issue of Purchase Certificate
    • Section 72B, 72C and 72K(1) & (2) read 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:
    • 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 Sub-section (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 Sub-section (1) may apply to the Land Tribunal within whose jurisdiction such holding or part is situate within two years from the dote 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 Sub-section (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 arc 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 Sub-section (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.

3. The Tenants are Liable to pay ‘Rent‘ and Land Tax

The land being vest in Govt. under Sec. 72, Sec. 72E casts duty on the ‘cultivating tenant’ to pay ‘rent‘ to the Government (for the unassigned land(e.g. exempted plantation land) vested in Government under Sec. 72).

In Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math,  (2015) 16 SCC 542, while dealing with the ‘vesting’ under Land Acquisition Act,1894, it is held that ‘it is a settled principle of law that once a property is vested by an Act of legislature, to achieve the laudable object, the same cannot be divested by the enactment of any subsequent general law and vest such property under such law.’

  • (LA Act, 1894, Sec. 16 reads as under: Power to take possession. When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.)

The concept of ‘vesting’ was also considered in The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1957 SC 344. In this decision it is held as under:

  • “(19) That the word “vest” is a word of variable import is shown by provisions of Indian statutes also. For example, S. 56 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920) empowers the Court at the time of the making of the order of adjudication or thereafter to appoint a receiver for the property of the insolvent and further provides that “such property shall thereupon vest in such receiver”. The property vests in the receiver for the purpose of administering the estate of the insolvent for the payment of his debts after realising his assets. The property of the insolvent vests in the receiver not for all purposes but only for the purpose of the Insolvency Act and the receiver has no interest of his own in the property. On the other hand, Ss. 16 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of LA), provide that the property so acquired, upon the happening of certain events, shall “vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances”. In the cases contemplated by Ss. 16 and 17 the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any conditions or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that the vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration. It would thus appear that the word “vest” has not got a fixed connotation meaning in all cases that the property is owned by the person or the authority in whom it vests. It may vest in title, or it may vest in possession, or it may vest in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it may have been used in a particular piece of legislation. The provisions of the Improvement Act, particularly Ss. 45 to 49 and 54 and 54-A when they speak of a certain building or street or square or other land vesting in a municipality or other local body or in a trust, do not necessarily mean that ownership has passed to any of them.” [Quoted in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (Arun Mishra, J.), (2020) 8 SCC 129.]

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.

4. Provisions as to Excess, Ceiling Return, Surrender, Exemption, Etc.

  • Section 81 – exemptions:
    • S. 81, the first Section in Chapter III deals with exemption from ceiling limit of plantation, industrial land, etc. Sec. 81(1)(e) reads as under:
    • “Exemptions: (1) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to–
      • (a) lands owned or held by the Government ….
      • …. …..
      • (e) plantations;
      • …………”
    • Note: Provisions of Chapter III shall apply to Government- lease-lands also, by virtue of the Proviso to sub-section (1)(a) of Sec. 81). The 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.”
    • 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.
  • Section 82 & 83 – ceiling area:
    • S. 82 & 83 deal with ceiling area and bars holding land excess of ceiling fixed.
    • 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) – surrender of excess land:
    • 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: …. ….”

Read Blog: Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell

5. Effect of Conversion or Sale of A Portion of Exempted Land

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.

Explanation II is explained by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority,2018-4 KLT 913, as under:

  • “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, 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 intervene. In short, the exemption will stand lost for that much extent of portion.

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 has to be lost; and the converted land will be taken for considering the ceiling limit. [Note: Here, ‘conversion’ does not envisage ‘sale’; for sale of plantation (land with plantation) alone is permitted – not sale after/for conversion.]

  • Note: In One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-1 KLT 985, it is held that a ‘transfer’ of such a plantation will be “against the provisions of the Act” (illegal).
  • 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).

Sec. 87(1A) provides – Person referred to above (transferee) also should file statement (Return).

Purport of Sec. 87

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, 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.”

6. Fragmentation has to be Treated as Conversion 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 High 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.”
  • “37. …. Fragmentation of the estate and transfer of it has to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some other category of land. Such being the scenario, fragmentation amounts to serious violation of the provisions of KLR Act. Hence, we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No.18 that the fragmented plots will be maintained as plantation by the transferees, so as to extend/avail the benefit of HMT’s case (supra). Taking into account of all the relevant aspects, we have no hesitation in holding that dropping of the suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 87 of KLR Act by the TLB in a cursory manner, is not at all reasonable or justifiable when tested on the touchstone of the object and intention, which the legislation seeks to achieve and beyond what is required, in the interest of the public.”

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

Possession by itself is a substantive right recognised by law. It is heritable and transferable. (Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathayi, AIR 1966 Ker 179; Phirayalal Kapur Vs. Jia Rani, AIR 1973 Delhi 186; Nallammal Vs. Ayisha Beevi, 2017-5 Mad LJ 864). 

See Blog: POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law

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’ 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.

9. Cultivating Tenants, were Obliged to Apply LT & The Legal Basis of Balanoor Plantations case

The legal basis of the decision, Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283, can be derived from Sec. Sec. 85(3) of the KLR Act.

Sec. 85(3) and (3A) of the KLR Act read as under:

  • (3). Where, after the final settlement of claims for resumption of lands held by a person as tenant, such person holds land in excess of the ceiling area, or where after the purchase of the right, title and interest of the landowner** and the intermediary by the cultivating tenant in respect of lands owned by a person, such person owns land in excess of the ceiling area, such excess land shall be surrendered as hereinafter provided.
  • (3A). The person bound to file a statement under Sub-section (2) 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.] [Substituted by Act No. 35 of 1969.

**Why the Words “After The Purchase of the Right, Title And Interest of the Landowner” Included?

It is definite: Excess shall be surrendered. If the claimant of Plantation Exemption (under Sec. 81) is a tenant, he must have approached the LT (with respect to each plantation, if he has more plantations under different landlords).

  • Because (i) this sub-section 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, and (ii) LT is the only authority to determine tenancy (Land Board cannot determine it). It is the principle applied in the Balanoor case.

Land Board or Taluk Land Board (deals with exemption on the ground of plantation, excess land issues etc.) cannot adjudicate on tenancy right.

Note: A tenant cannot avail benefits declaring himself to be a cultivating-tenant; on the contrary, he has to approach the competent statutory authority (for the same) under the KLR Act; that is, the Land Tribunal.

A cultivating tenant, “entitled to assignment” of the right under Sec. 72B, if failed to apply the same, will not have ‘vested right to continue’, as a cultivating tenant (in any case, beyond the ceiling limit) and he will not be entitled to the benefit of fixity under Sec. 13 of the KLR Act.

  • Note: The tenant who opts to avail benefits of plantation-exemption, under Sec. 81, cannot seek fragmentation (Sec. 87, Explanation II) of the plantation land and obtain purchase-certificate (under Sec. 72A, 72B or 72C). 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.

Sec. 72B provides for cultivating tenant’s rights to get assignment by purchase certificate (through LT) – within ceiling area. Tenant is “obliged to apply” for it within 2 years from 1-1-1970. Therefore, the cultivating tenants entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest were “obliged to apply” to the Land Tribunal within the time fixed for asserting the claim as cultivating tenants. This decision also says that tenants having ‘no bona fide claim’ as to cultivating-tenancy will not have the benefit of fixity under Sec. 13 of the KLR Act, and they will have ‘no vested right to continue’.

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.”

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

It is Government itself, 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).
    • Plantation land cannot be fragmented (Sec. 87, Explanation II); and, therefore (if the tenant opts to avail benefits of plantation- exemption, under Sec. 81) no part of plantation land can be assigned, or purchase-certificate can be issued, to the tenants (under Sec. 72A, 72B or 72C), even within ceiling limit. (Note: No rider to Sec. 72B and 72C, by way of proviso or otherwise, exempting plantation.)
    • Such a tenant is liable to pay ‘rent’ (Sec. 72E) to the Government (for the unassigned land(e.g. exempted plantation land) vested in Government under Sec. 72).
  • 3. ‘Exemption’ in Chapter III Cannot be read into Sec. 72B(2)
  • Sec. 72B(2) specifies that the provisions of Section 82 (as to ceiling limit) shall apply (when assignment is made; that is, purchase certificate is issued). It 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).”
  • As per Section 82, the “ceiling area” in the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a sole surviving member shall be five standard acres, so however, the ceiling area shall not be less than six and more than seven and a half acres in extent. Sub-section (2) of Section 82 provides that for the purposes of Chapter III, all the lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. In calculating the extent of land owned or held by a family or an adult unmarried person, Sub-section (3) of Section 82 provides for taking into account the share held by a member or members of the family or adult unmarried person jointly with other persons. Sub-section (4) of Section 82 provides for ignoring conversion of any class of land in Schedule II to any other class of land in that Schedule after the commencement of the Act. Explanation II to Section 82 provides that for the purposes of the said Section, an adult unmarried person shall included a divorced husband or divorced wife who has not remarried. (State of Kerala v. Puliyangattu Krishnan Master, ILR 2008-1 Ker 563) 
  • The exemption provision in Sec. 81 (Chapter III) cannot be brought-forth or read-into Sec. 72B (provision for assignment/purchase-certificate) in Chapter II.
  • Because,
    • The scheme of the KLR Act is not to confer ‘title’ on the planters in large area (KLR Act is, inter alia, to confer ‘title’ to cultivating tenants).
    • Proviso to Sec. 72B(1) shows – Sec. 72B(1) is an an independent provision. (It says as to assignment to a cultivating tenant within the ceiling limits.)
    • Sec. 72B(2) refers Section 82 (as to ceiling limit) as an independent provision – only to make clear the ‘limit’ or area; that is – “so far as may be, apply to the calculation of the ceiling area“.
    • When a provision (here, ceiling limit in Sec. 82) in Chapter III is referred in a section in another Chapter (here, Sec. 72B), to state the limit in area, it cannot be said – the colour or smell reflected on the first provision (here, Sec. 82), by virtue of another section (here, Sec. 81, the exemption provision) is reflected also on the latter section (here, Sec. 72B).
    • Note: No rider to Sec. 72B and 72C, by way of proviso or otherwise, exempting plantation.
  • 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 vested in Government under Sec. 72, will be divested in any manner (to the previous owner, or to the tenant or to 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). It is for the reason that (ownership of) the land vests in Govt.
    • Proceedings initiated by Taluk Land Board under Chapter III (in respect of plantation) do not confer title.
  • 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.

What is the legal right attached to former ‘tenants’ of Plantations, after vesting the land with Govt. under Sec. 72?

  • Though the tenant has fixity (Sec. 13), it is not Tenancy – For no landlord-tenant relation with the Govt.  (At the most, it can be a statutory-tenancy.)
  • 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 the “Legal Right is 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).

Who is the OWNER of Exempted (Leasehold/Granted) GOVERNMENT  (Plantation) Lands ?

  • It is Govt. itself.
  • Chapter II pertaining to fixity, issuance of Purchase Certificate etc. do not apply to Government lands. Therefore the Provisions as to the Grant or Lease in the Grant-Deeds and that in the Lease-Deeds fully continues to apply.
  • Chapter III grants exemption from ceiling limit on Plantations in Government-lands also.
  • Therefore, it is clear that the OWNERSIP of Exempted (Leasehold) Plantation (Govt.) Lands continues with the Government (in spite of the exemption from ceiling limit on Plantations in Chapter III).
  • Further, the Government Grants Act, 1895 and Government Lands Grants Act, 1940 apply to Malabar and Cochin areas, respectively. These Acts made restrictions in the “grant or other transfer of land or of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made by or on behalf of the Government to, or in favour of, any person whomsoever”.  By virtue of Section 2, Transfer of Property Act and Tenancy Acts did not to apply to lands given as grant by the Government.

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, –
    • the compensation for any building or other improvements belonging to such landowner and intermediaries shall be awarded to the Government; and
    • 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‘; but, it is real and actual.
  • 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”.
  • 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) .
  • Sec. 112(5A) deals with unassigned land (that is, no purchase certificate is given). Under this sub section land-value need not be given (even) to the land-owner or the tenant (tenant has no right above that of land owner in this regard) 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‘.
    • When a landowner has no vested right over and above the ceiling limit, it is illogical and irrational to say that the tenant will have it.
  • 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.

1040 Proclamation and Grant of Plantation Land by Travancore Government

In George A. Leslie v. State of Kerala, AIR 1970 Ker 21 (K. K. Mathew, J.), it was argued that benefits of 1040 (1865) Travancore Pattom Proclamation were also entitled to by the Grantees of plantation land. After analysing the provisions of the grant deed it was held that Proclamation of 1040 (1865), which conferred full rights on tenants of pandarapattom land, did not apply to grant-lands.

George A. Leslie v. State of Kerala – AIR 1970 Ker 21

It was observed in this decision as under:

  • “Ext. P-l is a grant made under the Travancore Regulation II of 1040 and the Rules for the sale of Waste Land on the Travancore Hills dated 24th April 1865. It conferred a heritable and transferable interest in the grantees of the land comprised in it. Clause 5 in Ext. P-l, which is identical with Section 5 in Form A of the Rules for the sale of Waste Land on the Travancore Hills, is the relevant provision for deciding this question. It provides:
    • “Grantees can appropriate to their own use within the limits of the grant all timber except the following and such as may hereinafter be reserved, namely, Teak, Gole Teak, Blackwood, Ebony, Karcomthaly, Sandalwood; should they carry any timber without the limits of the grant, it will be subject to the payment of kuttikanom or customs duty or both, as the case may be, in the same way as timber ordinarily felled”.
  • 10. We think that if title to the reserved trees passed to the grantees, a provision of this nature would have been quite unnecessary. There was no purpose in stating that the grantees will be free to appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant, if title to the trees passed to the grantees; the provision is a clear indication that the grantees were allowed to cut and appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant as a matter of concession.”

It was pointed out –

  • Travancore Pattom Proclamation of 1040 (1865), which conferred full rights on tenants of pandarapattom land. They have no application to the land or trees comprised in grants for cultivation of coffee or tea (under Rules for the sale of Waste Land on the Travancore Hills dated 24th April 1865).

The above findings of Mathew, J. was approved the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272, under the following words:

  • “We agree with the interpretation given to the clause by Mathew, J. and hold that the respondent- company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and the timber therein.”

The effect of Grant deeds were also considered in the following two important cases by the Supreme Court-

  • Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301
  • State of Kerala v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272

Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301

The Supreme Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301 (Sikri (Cj), Shelat, A.N. Ray, I.D. Dua, , H.R.  Khanna, JJ.) held that Kenan Devan Hills Concession (on grant deeds) fall within the expression “Janmam right” vested with Sircar. The State of Kerala made an Act – the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971, to “vest” the possession of the land remained in the possession of the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd.

According to the petitioner Company, ‘it has at all times been holding, cultivating, enjoying and dealing with the Concession Land as the absolute, owner thereof’.

According to the State, this land is dealt with under this heading – Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar. and that it was only “granted” to the company for ‘coffee cultivation’. The State asserted in this case –

  • that the petitioner Company was not an absolute owner, but only a lessee under the Government, especially since the 1899 Proclamation issued by H.H. the Maharaja declaring that Kannan Devan Hills was ‘an integral part’ of the ‘territory’.
  • that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title was John Danial Munro, who obtained, the first Pooniat Concession from Punjar Valiya Raja, on July 11, 1877. This Concession recited that an, application was made for the grant of the above property to the Raja for coffee cultivation.
  • It was further stipulated in the Concession that
    •  “you shall clear and remove the jungles, and reclaim the waste lands within the said boundaries, and cultivate them with coffee up to the year 1058 and from the year 1059, pay our rent collector a yearly rent at the rate of 3,000 British Rupees.”
  • H.H. the Maharaja executed a deed of ratification, dated November 28, 1878, by which the Government ratified the First Pooniat Concession dated July 11, 1877.
  • This deed of ratification laid down –  the Government permitted the grantee to hold the land. (it is similar to the ‘Grant/Title’ deeds executed by the State in all other ‘Grants’ – under the ‘Grant Rules’).
  • Clause 5 of the Deed of Ratification, is important. It provides, inter alia, that
    • “The grantee can appropriate to his own use within the limits of the grant all timber except the following and such as may hereafter be reserved namely, Teak, Cole Teak, Blackwood, Ebony, Karoonthaly, Sandalwood; should he carry any timber without the limits of the grant it will be subject to the payment of Kooteekanom, or Customs Duty……….
  • The eleventh clause reads – “The land granted shall be held in perpetuity as heritable or transferable property, but every case of transfer of the grant by the grantee shall be immediately made known to the Sircar, who shall have the right of apportioning the tax, if a portion of the holding is transferred.”
  • The twelfth clause stipulates – “The discovery of useful mines and treasures within the limits of the grant shall be communicated to the Sircar, and the grantee shall in respect to such mines and treasures, abide by the decision of the Sircar.”
  • The sixteenth clause provides – “The grantee shall be bound to preserve the forest trees growing on the banks of the principal streams running through the tract to the extent of fifty yards in breadth on each side of the stream, the Underwood only being permitted to be cleared and coffee planted instead. Similarly he shall also be bound to preserve the, trees about the crest of the hill to the extent of a quarter of a mile on each side.”
  • A Royal Proclamation was made on September 24, 1899 provided that ‘Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills is an integral portion of our territory and that the inhabitants of the said tract are ‘hereby informed and warned that they are not to pay any taxes, rents or dues, or make any other payment to the Poonjar Chief.

Points came for consideration in this decision were the following:

  • Whether the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 was protected from challenge under Art. 31A of the Constitution. That is, whether these lands fall within expression ‘Janmam right’ or “estate”  in art. 31A of the Constitution.
  • If the lands acquired were an “estate”, or with ‘Janmam right’ owned by the Company, the land reform enactment did not have stood valid. (Note: Kesavananda Bharathi Case came in 1973.)

The Apex Court found the following:

  • The janmam rights (even if remained with the Poonjar Chief, H.H. the Maharaja became the janmi by the Royal proclamation of 1899.
  • The nature of ‘janmam right’ has been examined by this Court previously in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887 Subba Rao, J., observed that janmam right in Kerala is an “estate and it is the freehold interest.
  • The Sircar itself is one of these janmis and it was the largest Janmi. It came to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways
  • If any person wants land in Travancore, he must obtain it from, some one of the body of Janmis, i.e. from the Sircar, which is the Chief Janmi, or from some other Janmi.

The Apex Court observed as under:

  • “… On the material placed before us it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression “Janmam right”.
  • If, as stated in Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume IV, there are no lands that do not belong to a Janmi and the Sircar becomes a janmi by gift, escheat confiscation or otherwise, the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1899 must be that the Sircar became the Janmi.”

The Apex Court further found –

  • The Registered Lands included inter alia, (a) Pandaravaka lands and (b) Janmam lands.
  • Regarding Pandaravaka lands it is stated : “Pandaravaka or Sircar lands are, lands of which the State is the landlord or the Jenmi and whatever rights which vest in the ryots are derived from the Sircar.”
  • Kenan Devan Hills Concession is dealt with under this heading, i.e. Pandaravaka Lands.
  • It thus appears that the State grants like Kanan Devan Hills Concession and Ten Square Miles Concession, and Munro Lands, were treated under the heading ‘Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar (that is, such Grant-lands were not ‘owned’ by the holders thereof).

On these findings The Apex Court upheld the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 and dismissed the challenge of the Company.

State of Kerala v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272

With respect to the same property  it was held in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272, as under:

  • “The Trial Court in a detailed and well-reasoned judgment dismissed the suit of the company. The Trial Court on the interpretation of First Concession (Exhibit P- 1), Second Concession (Exhibit P-2), deed of ratification (Exhibit P-62) and the Government agreement with the Society dated August 2, 1866 (Exhibit P-64) came to the conclusion that the company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and timber in the said area. It was held that the Poonjar Chief had only conveyed heritable and transferable possessory rights over the Concession area to the grantee. It was also held that absolute rights over the trees and timber in the Concession Area did not pass to the grantee and it had only the right to use and remove timber subject to the restrictions imposed in the deeds of conveyance/ratification.”

It is observed:

  • “An identical clause in another grant entered into by the Travancore Government came for consideration before a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in George A Leslie v. State of Kerala, [1969] K. L.T. 378, K. K. Mathew, J. (as the learned Judge then was) interpreted the clause as under:
    • “ We think that if title to the reserved trees passed to the grantees, a provision of this nature would have been quite unnecessary. There was no purpose in stating that the grantees will be free to appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant, if title to the trees passed to the grantees; the provision is a clear indication that the grantees were allowed to cut and appropriate the reserved trees for consumption within the limits of the grant as a matter of concession.”
  • “We agree with the interpretation given to the clause by Mathew, J. and hold that the respondent- company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and the timber therein.”

It is observed further:

  • “It was further held by Mathew, J. (in George A. Leslie v. State of Kerala, 1969 KLT 378) that kuttikanam being the governments share of the value of the trees owned by the government it has the power to fix the value of the trees. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached by Mathew, J.”

The Apex Court upheld and approved “the judgment and findings” of the Trial Court.

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

During the second half of the 19th century several Royal Proclamations were promulgated with a view to confer rights in the land to the tenants who were the real cultivators. Majority of the people were engaged in agriculture; but the lands belonged to Jenmies (Sircar, Brahmins or Devaswoms). The cultivators held the land under lease arrangement known as Pattom, Otti, Inam and Viruthi etc. One of the important Regulations came in the line of agrarian reforms was the Royal Proclamation of 1040 ME (1865 AD). It pertained to Pattom (lease) tenements created (by Sircar) on Sirkar lands known as Pandaravaka lands. It is exalted as the Magna Carta of peasants of Travancore it being led to conferring land to tillers, step by step.

Paragraph 9 of the Royal Proclamation of 1061 (1886) brought in further radical changes as regards Pandarapattam lands. It said 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 further 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.

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

End Notes:

How to deal with Govt. property upon which title is claimed by plaintiffs dealt with in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, : (2012) 8 SCC 148.

Facts, in a nutshell, were this –

  • Plaintiff Ibrahim Uddin filed the Suit for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property originally had been with the Maratha Government.
  • The ancestors of the plaintiff having close association with the Maratha Government, were made a grant in respect of the suit land in the year 1800.
  • The land was partitioned between the ancestors in 1819.
  • The Union of India claimed title over the suit land, thus the suit.
  • UoI averred that the land belonged to it, a part of which has been leased out to several persons for agriculture work and their lease has been renewed from time to time.
  • As they became unauthorised occupants, proceedings had been initiated in accordance with law and eviction order had been passed against the occupants/tenants.
  • The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove any kind of grant by the Maratha Government to his ancestors in 1800.
  • Plaintiff failed to prove the partition between his ancestors in 1819.
  • The lease deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the Military Estate Officer under the Union of India, was not successfully proved.
  • In view of the above, the suit was dismissed.
  • The first appeal before the District Judge, Agra.
  • In appeal, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC the Will executed by his maternal grandfather dated 1.3.1929 in his favour bequeathing the suit property was marked.
  • The First Appeal was allowed on conclusion that Maratha Government had made the gift of land in favour of plaintiff’s forefathers which was subsequently partitioned.
  • The registered partition deed stood duly proved and it was the proof of the title of the plaintiff.
  • The appellant UoI did not produce any document to show its title and failed to produce the original record, thus, adverse inference was drawn under Section 114 clause(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  • The Second Appeal was dismissed. Hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court held –

  • It is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration without seeking consequential relief by virtue of the proviso of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963  (Relying on: Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685, Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra, AIR 1993 SC 957, Gian Kaur v. Raghubir Singh, (2011) 4 SCC 567).
  • There was nothing on record to show that Maratha Government had made a gift to the ancestors of the plaintiff.
  • A case not specifically pleaded can be considered by the court. The pleadings in substance contain the necessary averments to make out a particular case and issue has been framed on the point. In absence of pleadings, the court cannot make out a case not pleaded, suo motu (Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, AIR 2009 SC 1103 relied on). Hence the claim of title by virtue of the Will cannot be taken note of being not based on pleadings.
  • The Will had been executed prior to the birth of the plaintiff.  it could not have been taken into consideration without proper scrutiny of facts and, that too, without any pleading.
  • The rent note allegedly executed by the fore-fathers of the plaintiff. The said rent note does not provide any description of the property nor does it bear any date. The rent note does not provide any period at all. It could not be linked to prove the title.
  • UoI produced the certified copies of the Extract from General Land Register prepared on 15.3.1948 in support of its case and denying title of the plaintiff/respondent No.1.
  • The High Court rejected the same on the ground that the partition among the ancestors of the plaintiff had taken place prior to enactment of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925, though there is nothing on record to prove the said partition.
  • More so, the partition would not be a conclusive factor to determine the title of ownership.
  • The General Land Register maintained under the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the Rules made thereunder are public documents and the certified copies of the same are admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 65 read with Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
  • It is settled legal position that the entries made in General Land Register maintained under Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive evidence of title. (Vide: Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil, AIR 1999 SC 2294; and Union of India & Ors. v. Kamla Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 511). The title of government cannot be disputed.

The Apex Court allowed the appeal and held –

  • There was nothing on record to prove the grant/gift by the Maratha Government in favour of ancestors of plaintiff/respondent No.1 in the year 1800.
  • The alleged partition in the year 1819 even if had taken place, cannot be a proof of title.
  • Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of 30 years’ old document coming from proper custody relates to the signature, execution and attestation of a document i.e. to its genuineness but it does not give rise to presumption of correctness of every statement contained in it.
  • If the Will was ignored, there was nothing on record to show as how the plaintiff  could claim the title. The truth of contents of a document have to be proved like any other fact.
  • The rent note did not prove anything.
  • The Will in absence of any pleading could not be taken on record. More so, the Will was not proved in accordance with law i.e. Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
  • The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings as no party can lead the evidence on an issue/point not raised in the pleadings and in case, such evidence has been adduced or a finding of fact has been recorded by the Court, it is just to be ignored.
  • Though it may be a different case where in spite of specific pleadings, a particular issue is not framed and parties having full knowledge of the issue in controversy lead the evidence and the court records a finding on it.
  • The first appellate court as well as the High Court recorded a finding that the Union of India failed to prove its title over the suit land. The said courts did not realise that this was not the issue to be determined, rather the issue had been as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land.

Read Connected Blogs:

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 EPersons acquired lands (before 2005 amendment in KLR Act) for consideration below 1 Ha. 61 Are 87 Sq.m. (4 acre) will be deemed to be tenants .
13Fixity: “Every tenant, shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding.”
22Landlord desiring to resume any land shall apply to the Land Tribunal.
31Fair 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 Land Tribunal.
55. Purchase price is fixed by LT (on fair rent u/s. 31) to be paid u/s. 59
57. The LT after enquiries, pass 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.
59When 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.
72BCultivating-tenant “shall be entitled to assignment” of land vested in Govt. under Sec. 72 –within ceiling area and get purchase certificate (through LT) (2 years from 1-1-1970). Effect of non-filing (See Balanoor Plantations case. 2018(3) KLT 283.)
72DThe 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.)
72ESuch a tenant is liable to pay rent to the Govt. for the unassigned land – under Purchase Certificate (E.g., exempted-plantation-land). The Land Tribunal fixes the rent under Sec. 72F(5)(h).
72CProvides 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). 
72KLT shall issue purchase certificate.  It shall be conclusive proof of assignment.
74Prohibition of future tenancies.
Chap. III 
81		Exemption from ceiling and excess for Govt. lands, private forests, plantations, industrial or commercial undertakings, etc.
Proviso – There will be an 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.
82Ceiling area – 5/10 standard acres.
83No 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.
84Certain transfers – void.
85(1)Surrender excess.
85(2)Owners and Tenants (having land in excess of the ceiling area) should furnish ceiling return to Land Board before March31, 1971, before the Land Board (including lands exempted under S. 81).
Note: 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) or (3A), LB shall intimate that fact to 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 has 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 statement:  State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew, AIR 1996 SC 1009.
[TLB not to do, suo motu, without direction from LB. 1980 KLT 120, referred to in 2019(1) KLT 985.]
85AFile 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 converts any portion of exempted land for any other class, that converted extent will be added to his account in determining his ceiling limit. That is, the exemption will be lost for the portion that exceeds the ceiling limit. (Mathew K Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, 2018-4 KLT 913)

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic):

Book No. 1.   Handbook of a Civil Lawyer

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

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

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment