Exempted Plantation Land – In whom Ownership Vests

(Does Plantation Exemption confer Unconditional Rights over the ‘LAND’?)

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Key Takeaways

Does the Plantation Exemption confer Unconditional Rights (to the Owner) over the ‘LAND’?
No.
Exemption is only a ‘Legal Advantage conferred by Statute’. It continues (only) as long as Plantation exists.

Who is the OWNER of Exempted (Private-Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala?
It is the Government, though by virtue of Chapter II (Sec. 13), the tenant has ‘Fixity’ (within ceiling limit).

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

Can Plantation be fragmented?
No.
Section 81 is a special provision to prevent the fragmentation of plantations and to improve the economy of the state. Changing the character of the plantation could be termed as ‘conversion’, and that will be against the provisions of the Act. (One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 KHC(SN) 10; 2019-1 KLT 985)

PART I

Chapter III – Deals with Ceiling Limit and Exemptions

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

  • Among other things, it procures provisions as to:
    • ceiling limit,
    • exemptions from ceiling limit,
    • filing ceiling return,
    • determining extent to be surrendered,
    • surrender,
    • taking possession by TLB,
    • effect of conversion of exempted land.

Exemption from Ceiling Limit

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

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

PART II

Does the Plantation Exemption confer Unconditional Rights over the ‘LAND’?

No.

It is for the following reason –

  • Exemption is only a ‘Legal Advantage conferred by Statute’. It continues (only) as long as Plantation exists.
  • Because,
    • 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 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 will be lost; and the land will be taken for considering the ceiling limit.

Sec. 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.”
  • Note: 1. The (main) section refers to lands in general (and not confined to Plantation). The Explanations alone refer to Plantation Lands.
  • 2. The expression “ceases to be exempted” in first Explanation denotes the following –
    • A Plantation land can be “ceases to be exempted” either ono “conversion” given in Explanation II or on legislation.
    • That is, if there is conversion as stated in Explanation II, it will be taken as land “exceeds the ceiling area“, and
    • “such excess” stands liable to be “surrendered” (automatically – without intervention of any authority).
  • 3. In case of conversion by a transfer/sale, the expression “person” denote the transferee. It is clear from the beginning words of this section – “Where any person acquires any land … by gift, purchase, … or any other kind of transfer …”
  • 4. The expression “shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date” in the last limb of Explanation II (also) shows the nexus between the Explanations I and II. The result is that “such excess” stands liable to be “surrendered” (automatically – without intervention of any authority)

Fragmentation of Plantation will be against the Provisions of the Act

Section 81 is a special provision to prevent fragmentation of plantation and to improve the economy of the state. Change the character of the plantation could be termed as ‘conversion’ and that will be against the provisions of the Act. (One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 KHC(SN) 10; 2019-1 KLT 985). (See: Notes under the heading – Effect of Fragmentation for Non-exempted Category)

Sec. 120A, KLR Act is Relevant

Fragmentation of plantation land amounts to ‘conversion’. It will be against the provisions of the Act. Section 120A, KLR Act is relevant in this regard. It reads as under:

  • 120A.  Registering officer not to register in certain cases. – Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908), where the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government in this behalf informs the registering officer in writing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any document relating to transfer of land which may be presented before him for registration is intended to defeat the provisions of this Act, such registering officer shall not register such document until the District Collector or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, informs the registering officer that the transfer is not intended to defeat the provisions of this Act. [Inserted by Act 17 of 1972.]

Chapter III – Excess, Ceiling Return, Surrender, Exemption, Etc.

PLANTATIONS – Analysis of S. 81, 82 and 83

CHAPTER III of the KLR Act deals with Ceiling Area and Excess Lands.

Sec. 81 provides for ‘Exemptions’. Sec. 81 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: Exemption apply to lease-lands owned by the Government.

Sec. 81(1)(a) Proviso says –

  • “Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease“. (See notes under the heading: “Sec. 81 exemptions do not apply to Govt. lands; But, Exemption apply to lease-lands”)

Ceiling area 

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

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

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.”

It is a total bar.

  • Apply to tenant also. 1980 KLT 259 (Gopalan Nair Vs. State), 1976 KLT 306  (Thomas Mariamma Vs. TLB),

The policy of the Act – no person –“be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area.”

  • Raghunath Laxman Wani v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 2137) – quoted in 2008(1) KLJ 571 (State Vs. Puliyangattu). Followed in State vs Civil Judge, Nainital, AIR 1987 SC 16; Bhikoba S. Vs. ML Punchand Tathed, AIR 1982 (SC) 865.

Section 85(1) reads as under:

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

Section 2 (3) defines ceiling area as under:

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

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

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

See note below: ‘No Total Prohibition in using Exempted Land for a Different Purpose‘

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

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

81(1)(a) Proviso says –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 86 reads:

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

Read Blog: Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?

PART III

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

Section 87 is the relevant provision – quoted above.

From Sec. 87, following legal principles can be deduced (as stated above) –

  • 1. The (main) section refers to lands in general (and not confined to Plantation). The Explanations refer to Plantation Lands.
  • 2. The expression “ceases to be exempted” in first Explanation denotes the following –
    • A Plantation land can be “ceases to be exempted” either ono “conversion” given in Explanation II or on legislation.
    • Therefore, if there is conversion as stated in Explanation II, it will be taken as land “exceeds the ceiling area“, and
    • “such excess” stands liable to be “surrendered” (automatically – without intervention of any authority).
  • 3. In case of conversion by a transfer/sale, the expression “person” denote the transferee. It is clear from the beginning words of this section – “Where any person acquires any land … by gift, purchase, … or any other kind of transfer …”
  • 4. The expression “shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date” in the last limb of Explanation II (also) shows the nexus between the Explanations I and II. The result is that “such excess” stands liable to be “surrendered” (automatically – without intervention of any authority)

No Total Prohibition in using Exempted Land for a Different Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Embargo to Transfer Plantation Land

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

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

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

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

Effect of Fragmentation for Non-exempted Category

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

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

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

Possession is a heritable and transferable right. [See: Nallammal Vs. Ayisha Beevi, 2017-5 Mad LJ 864; Phirayalal Kapur Vs. Jia Rani, AIR 1973 Delhi 186].

Therefore, a tenant of plantation having rights of fixity (Sec. 13) may have the right to transfer it to another. In any case, the change of character or nature of the plantation by fragmentation being amount to ‘conversion’ 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.

PART – IV 

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

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

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

Below 30 acres – Chapter II applies:

  1. By virtue of S. 3(1)(viii)Chapter II applies to all tenancies (both above and below 30 acres. It stands contradistinct to ‘leased-lands-upon-which-plantation-was-put-up’ by the tenant above 30 acres.
  2. Such tenants also get benefit of exemption under Sec. 81 and they can continue without being affected by the ceiling limit under Sec. 82 and 83.
  3. For getting benefits of Sec. 81 exemption ceiling return (Sec. 85(2); 85A). should have been filed.

Above 30 acres ‘Plantation-Tenancy’- KLR Act will not Apply:

  • S. 3(1)(viii) being exclude (from Chapter II) ‘Plantation-Tenancy’ (i.e. ‘leased-lands-upon-which-plantation-was-put-up’ by the landlord) above 30 acres, provisions of Chapter II do not apply to such plantations.
  1. Hence, No ‘fixity’ under Sec. 13, for the tenants of ‘Plantation-Tenancy’ above 30 acres.
  2. Contract applies to termination of tenancy, above 30 acre plantation–tenancy. But, until evicted lawfully, such tenants get benefit of exemption under Sec. 81 and they can continue without being affected by the ceiling limit under Sec. 82 and 83.
  3. Land lord is entitled Sec. 81 exemption over such plantation.
  4. For getting benefits of Sec. 81 exemption, ceiling return [Sec. 85(2); 85A] should have been filed.

If tenant raised plantation on bare land leased: S. 3(1)(viii)does not apply.

  1. S. 3(1)(viii) does not deal with plantations put up on bare land leased by the tenants. (Such property is not excluded from Chapter II, also.)
  2. That is, the protection or benefits given to tenants (fixity) can be availed by such tenants (who put up plantation on land leased).
  3. No purchase Certificate can be obtained, for, fragmentation of plantation will not be allowed (Sec. 87 Expl. II).
  4. Under Sec. 81, such tenants can avail exemption and they can also continue without being affected by the ceiling limit under Sec. 82 and 83.
  5. Such lands also vest in Government under Sec. 72.
  6. For getting benefits of Sec. 81 exemption ceiling return [Sec. 85(2); 85A]. should have been filed.

Assignment of Purchase certificate to Tenants 

  • Sec. 72B provides for cultivating tenant’s rights to get assignment  – purchase certificate (through LT) – within ceiling area. [Tenant is “obliged to apply” for it within 2 years from 1-1-1970. Effect of not applying for assignment, See: Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283. This decision also says that tenants having ‘no bona fide claim’ as to cultivating-tenancy has ‘no vested right to continue’.]
  • Sec. 72 C provides for suo moto action by LT. (No time limit,)
  • The tenant who opts to avail benefits of plantation-exemption, under Sec. 81, cannot seek fragmentation (Sec. 87, Explanation II) of the plantation land so as to obtain purchase-certificate (under Sec. 72A, 72B or 72C) within ceiling limit. Still, he stands as a cultivating tenant, “entitled to assignment” of the right under Sec. 72B. As shown elsewhere, there is an option for the tenant – either to obtain purchase-certificate or to avail plantation-exemption.

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

  • Such lands vest in Govt. under Sec. 72 also.

PATR IV

VESTING OF LAND IN GOVT. & RIGHT OF GOVT. TO COLLECT RENT

According to the provisions of the KLR Act, lands held by individuals (or associations of persons) vest in Govt. under two provisions. They are-

  • First, Sec. 72 – Vesting of landlord’s rights in Government.
  • Second, 86. Vesting of excess lands in Government.
    • Note: Sec. 86 does not apply to Plantations, for (i) they being already vest in Govt. under Sec. 72, and (ii) if Govt. land, no question of vesting arises.

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”

Section 86 reads:

  • 86. Vesting of excess lands in Government. (1) On the determination of the extent and other particulars of the lands, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered under Section 85, the ownership or possession or both, as the case may be of the land shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances and the Taluk Land Board shall issue an order accordingly.
  • (2) On receipt of [the order of the Taluk Land Board under Sub-section (1)] such person shall make the surrender demanded, in such manner as may he prescribed.
  • (3) Where any person fails to make the surrender demanded, the [Taluk Land Board] may authorise any officer to take possession or assume ownership of the land in such manner as may be prescribed.
  • [(4) Where the ownership of any land vests in the Government under Sub-section (1), the rights of the intermediary, if any, in respect of the land shall stand extinguished, and where possession of any land which was in the possession of a cultivating tenant vests in the Government under that Sub-section, the ownership of such land shall vest in the Government and the rights of the intermediary, if any, in respect of such land shall stand extinguished.]
  • It is a total bar.
    • Apply to tenant also. 1980 KLT 259 (Gopalan Nair Vs. State), 1976 KLT 306  (Thomas Mariamma Vs. TLB),
    • The policy of the Act – no person –“be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area.” Raghunath Laxman Wani v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 2137) – quoted in 2008(1) KLJ 571 (State Vs. Puliyangattu). Followed in State vs Civil Judge, Nainital, AIR 1987 SC 16; Bhikoba S. Vs. ML Punchand Tathed, AIR 1982 (SC) 865.

PART V

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

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

1. Plantation (lease) Lands VEST in GOVT, automatically

  • Because,
  • Sec. 72 provides for
    • mandatory and involuntary vesting in Government–
    • of leasehold lands that is held by cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under Sec. 13 (even if the extent exceeds ceiling limit).

2.  ‘Vesting’ in Govt. is ‘Vesting of Ownership‘

  • It is for the reasons –
    • Sec. 72(1) [Declared to be ‘vested’ in Government],
    • Sec. 72E [the cultivating tenant shall pay rent to the Government from 01.01.1970],    
    • Sec.72F(h) [Land Tribunal to fix the rent stated in Sec. 72E] and
    • 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].

3. Article 31A(1), Proviso of the Constitution of India

  • Article 31A(1), Proviso lays down that the State need not pay compensation to the land-owners (when land is acquired) above the ceiling limit.  And, the aforestated provisions of the KLR Act are legislated following this constitutional provision. 
  • Article 31A(1), Proviso of the Constitution 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.”

Read Blog: Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?

4. ‘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 for a limited purpose. 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)
  • 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.
  • Further:
    • Chapter II of the KLR Act (dealing with ‘Tenancy’) is exclusive and exhaustive as to ‘fixity’ and ‘vesting’ of land in Government.
    • 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.)
    • 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. 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.

5. 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. (See Notes below under head: Sec. 112 of the KLR Act)

6. Tenant/Owner cannot ‘Sell’ Plantation Land (above ceiling limit) as his absolute property

  • An owner, or a tenant who got ‘fixity’ over such land, cannot ‘sell’ this land as his absolute (ownership) property.

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 (9 July, 2010, 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.
  • (Appeal Judgment: Perumal Smaraka Nidhi vs M/S Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., 31. 01. 2013.)

Rights of ‘tenants’ of Plantations, after vesting the land with Govt.?

Is the Vesting in Govt. “Fictional” (and it is only for transferring land to the Tenant)?

  • Yes; as regards lands within the ceiling limit.
  • No; as regards lands above ceiling limit.

It is a ‘Legal Right conferred by Statute’

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

Apportionment’s of land value in cases of Acquisition

Sec. 112 of the KLR Act reads-

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

Read Blog: Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?

The Govt. is Entitled Reasonable ‘Rent’ and Land Tax

The land being vest in Govt., it can collect reasonable ‘rent’. 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.

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

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

Sec. 72B reads as under:

  • “72B. Cultivating tenants right to assignment. – (1) The cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Section 72, shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest:
  • 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.”

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

In Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283, it is pronounced that the tenants must have approached the Land  Trtibunal for getting plantation exemption.  It is basing on the Principle – Land Tribunal to fix tenancy’; TLB to fix excess land & resultantly to fix plantation exemption.  

Cultivating Tenant ‘Entitled to Assignment’, were Obliged to Apply LT

Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283, it was observed that 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 and he will not be entitled to the benefit of fixity under Sec. 13 of the KLR Act.

Sec. 72B provides for cultivating tenant’s rights to get assignment by purchase certificate (through LT) – within ceiling area.

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

  • It is for adjudicating the ‘tenancy right’.
  • The reason is that the Land Tribunal is the only authority that can decide on the “tenancy right.”
  • A Tenant is “obliged to apply” for it within 2 years from 1-1-1970. 
  • Under Sec. 72A, the Landlord is entitled to Compensation and under Sec. 72D, a tenant is bound to pay the Purchase Price. The Scheme of the KLR Act requires that there should be proceedings before the Land Tribunal under Sec. 72B or 72C.
  • Suo Motu proceedings may not be initiated by the Government for the benefit of a Plantation Tenant (who was entitled to purchase a certificate within the ceiling limit, within the time allowed). It cannot be sought by a tenant, ‘as of right’.
  • Note: Plantation-lands usually involve Hundreds or Thousands of Acres of “excess” land. The assignment-possible-land (within ceiling limit) may be minuscule (7.5 acres or 15 acres). Therefore, the analogy that a tenant has a right to seek assignment is not apt at all.
  • Note: A tenant cannot declare himself to be a cultivating-tenant and avail benefits – the competent statutory authority (for the same) under the KLR Act is the Land Tribunal.

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.”

Effect of not applying for assignment

In Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 283, it is stated that the tenants having ‘bona fide claim’ as to cultivating tenancy would have approached the LT. Those tenants who had not approached the LT would have ‘no vested right to continue’ as tenants (claiming plantation-tenancy-benefit).

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

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

End Notes

Relevant provisions of KLR Act, in a Nutshell

Section Provisions in a Nutshell
Chap. II 
3(1)		Exemptions – (i) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to – (viii) Tenancies of plantations exceeding 30 acres.
“Provided that the provisions of this chapter, other than sections 53 to 72S, shall apply to tenancies in respect of agricultural lands which are treated as plantations under sub clause (c) of clause (44) of Section 2”.
7 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
72(1)
72(4)		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.
72(4) – says: Landowner entitled to resume land shall apply within the time fixed. Otherwise vest in govt.
Rule 5 of the Vesting & Assignment Rules provides – LT may suo moto – notwithstanding no application – assign to cultivating tenant. (See  S.72C also). 
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.)
72D. The cultivating tenant has to pay the purchase price to the Government on the assignment to him of the right, title and interest of the landowner. (If the extent of land is one hectare or below, he shall not be liable to pay.)
72ESuch tenant is liable to pay rent to the Government.
72CProvides for suo moto action by LT. (No time limit,)
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 CONNECTED BLOGS (CLICK):

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious 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