Do the Plantation-Tenants have a Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land, beyond the Ceiling Limit (under Purchase Certificates)?

Are Such Tenants Entitled for Full Compensation if the Land is Acquired?

‘No’ is the Answer.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Contents in a Nutshell

1. Ceiling Limit: The maximum extent of land assignable under a Purchase Certificate is circumscribed by the ceiling limit, under Section 72B(1)(a) and (b) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
2. Plantation Exemption: Owners and tenants of plantations are permitted to retain plantation lands in excess of the ceiling limit by availing the ‘exemption’ provided under Section 81. However, the said exemption does not confer any absolute proprietary right over such land.
3. Exempted plantation (lease) land Vest in Government: Title/ownership of unassigned–exempted-plantation-lease-land is vested with the Government, under Section 72(1).
4. Tenant Cannot Claim Better Right than the Landowner: Section 72G provides for payment of compensation to the former landowner; consequently, the vesting of the land in the Government under Section 72 stands absolutely affirmed. In such a situation, the tenant cannot claim any right better than that which the landowner himself did not possess.
5. Tenants will be Deemed as Tenants of the Govt. Such tenants have to pay ‘Rent’ to the Government (Section 72E) for the unassigned–exempted-plantation-lease-land. The rent is fixed by the Land Tribunal [Section 72F(5)(h) ].
6 On Acquisition, No Land Value to Previous Owners or Tenants: If the land vested in Government under Section 72 is acquired, land-value will not be paid to the former land-owner or the tenant (Section 112(5A).
7. Exemption will be lost, if “Fragmented”:The exemption granted to a plantation will be lost if it is “fragmented” or the plantation-crop is abandoned (under Section 87).

Relevant Provisions of Law

Sec. 53 – Cultivating tenant’s right to purchase landlord’s rights.
Sec. 55 – Purchase price to land owner – It is 16 times fare rent for land plus value of structures of land owner plus half value of timber trees.
- Sec. 59 – Deposit purchase price by cultivating tenant before Land Tribunal. Purchase Certificate is conclusive proof.
- Sec. 64– Payment of purchase price to land owner – full discharge (from the part of land owner)
Section 72(1), Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963: All right, title and interest of the land-owners held by cultivating-tenants as on 1. 1. 1970 entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 shall vest in the Government.
Sec. 72A – Compensation to land owner for vesting under Sec. 72 in Govt. – No right remains with (erstwhile owner) thereafter.
- 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}
2. Section 72B: It deals with “cultivating tenants’ right to assignment” (of the land vested in Government under Section 72). Sub Section 1(a) and (b) of this Section direct that the assignment should be within the ceiling limit (mentioned in Section 82).
3. Section 72C: It deals with assignment of land, where the cultivating-tenant has not made application under Section 72B. All provisions of Section 72B, except sub section 3, are made applicable to Section 72C. The opening words of Section 72C (“notwithstanding anything contained in sub Section 3 of Section 72B”), indicate the nexus between Section 72B and Section 72C. Therefore, the purchase certificate can be issued, within ceiling limit alone, under Section 72C, as in the case of Section 72B.
4. Section 72E: As stated above, tenancy-lands vest in the Government, under Section 72. The tenants (under Government) of unassigned-exempted-plantation-land, etc., are liable to pay rent to the Government for the unassigned (over and above the ceiling limit).
5. Section 72F(5)(h): Land Tribunal fixes the rent for the said unassigned–exempted-land (under Section 81) .
6. Section 72G: For the land vested in the Government under Section 72, compensation is paid to the former landowner. Subsections (2) and (3) ensure the payment of substantial compensation. Consequently, the vesting effected under Section 72(1) stands duly justified and legally sustained.
7. Section 87(1) and its Explanations I and II: Only a limited right to continue; and, fragmentation is prohibited. The specified plantation-crop alone is permitted. The exemption is given subject to the condition – not to “convert” the land for any other use.
- In case the land is ‘converted’, the exemption-benefit would be lost, and the exemption may be withdrawn under Explanation II of Section 87(1).
8. Section 112 (5A): On acquisition, the cultivating tenants are entitled to compensation for improvements (only) for the land vested in the Government under Section 72.
9. Section 112 (5A)(a):The compensation for any building or other improvements belonging to the land-owner shall be awarded to the Government.
10. Section 112 (5A)(b):The balance-compensation remaining after deducting the amount 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.
11. Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India:The State need not pay compensation to the land owners (when land is acquired) above the ‘ceiling limit‘.
- The provisions of the KLR Act, in this regard, are legislated following this proviso in Article 31A(1). It goes without saying – if no compensation is payable to the land-owners above the ceiling limit, it need not be given to tenants.

Legal Right Conferred by the Statute
From the above, it is clear:

The unassigned land allowed to be occupied by a tenant (over and above the ceiling limit for which the tenant is liable to pay rent to the Government under Section 72E) can be termed as a “Legal Right conferred by the Statute”. It is not an absolute right that is conferred to some, including the BIG plantation tenants.

Land Owners’s Right for Compensation

The right for the same arises in the following three instances.

On Assignment to CULTIVATING TENANT: Sec. 55
On VESTING under Sec. 72: Sec. 72A
On Surrendering SURPLUS LAND: Sec. 88

Sec. 55 – Purchase price to land owner –

Sec. 53 lays down the cultivating tenant’s right to purchase landlord’s rights. Sec. 55 provides for the purchase price entitled to by the land owner. It is 16 times the fair rent for land, plus the value of the structures on the land, plus half the value of the timber trees. _{[Note: Same rate under Sec. 72A & 72D(2) ].}

Sec. 59 – Deposit purchase price by cultivating tenant before Land Tribunal. Purchase Certificate is conclusive proof.
Sec. 64– Payment of purchase price to land owner is a full discharge (from the part of land owner).

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) ]}

Sec. 72D – Cultivating tenant to pay purchase price (for getting assignment – below the ceiling limit alone).
Sec. 72D(1A)- No purchase price is land below One Hect.
Sec. 72D(2) – Purchase price to Govt. – 16 times fair rent for land plus value of structures of land owner plus half value of timber trees) _{Note: Same rate under Sec. 72A & 55}.
Land above the ceiling limit payment is only under Sec. 88 – on surrendering land. (It is paid by the Government, not by the tenant.)

The Policy of the KLR Act
Section 83, lays down 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 of Kerala v. Puliyangattu Krishnan Master, 2008(1) KLJ 571).

Unjustifiable to Confer Undue Benefits to Plantation-Tenants
Under Section 72A and Section 88, meagre compensation is paid to the land owners on vesting landlords’ rights in the Government and on surrendering the surplus land. It is most unjustifiable to confer undue rights or benefits on the tenants or lessees (which is not given to the land owners) when their lease-hold-lands are acquired (the majority of such plantation-lessees are Companies).

Lands of the Maharaja of Travancore were taken

It is a matter of record that even the lands of the Maharaja of Travancore—191 acres situated within Thiruvananthapuram City, far in excess of the statutory ceiling of 7.5 acres, were taken over pursuant to the orders of the Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram, vide Order No. LB(B)2-18919/70 dated 15-01-1972. Equally, it is an indisputable fact that thousands of middle-class landowners were subjected to the rigour of the Act, and their excess lands were taken by the force of law.

Therefore, it would be wholly unreasonable to contend that the Legislature intended to confer any special or undue benefit upon plantation-tenants (benefits which were not extended to middle-class landowners, to other categories of tenants governed by the Act and even to the Maharaja of Travancore).

Any interpretation that elevates plantation-tenants to a privileged class, beyond the plain limits imposed by the statute, would be contrary to the scheme, object, and egalitarian ethos of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

Section 72, KLR Act – ‘Vesting of Ownership’ in Government

Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act speaks about ‘vesting of landlord’s rights in Government’. It pertains to –

“All right, title and interest of the land-owners and intermediaries … and in respect of which certificates of purchase… have not been issued, shall …. vest in the government”.

As compensation is paid to the former landowner under Section 72G, the vesting of the land in the Government under Section 72 is absolute.

Fixity of Tenure and Assignment under Kraya Certificate

Section 13 of the KLR Act, which declares Fixity of Tenure to the cultivating tenants, is dealt with under Chapter II that governs tenancies; whereas the provisions of ceiling (Section 82 and Section 83) come under Chapter III that governs restriction on ownership, ceiling area, etc. (Section 83 restricts holding land, excess of ceiling limits prescribed under Section 82.)

Fixity of tenure is assured in Section 13(1) “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom, usage of contract, etc.”
The Fixity of Tenure (laid down under Section 13, in Chapter II) is not controlled by the ceiling provisions in Section 82 and 83 (in Chapter III). That is, the provisions as to Fixity of Tenure will prevail, without being affected by the ceiling provisions in Chapter III.
Note: (1) Section 13 (Fixity of Tenure) is controlled by Section 72 (in Chapter II itself) as to vesting in Government.
(2) The stipulations as to ceiling-limit were specifically brought into Sec. 72B (Chapter II) for the reason that Chapter II stands independent of Chapter III .

Therefore, land cannot be assigned under Section 72B and 72C, by the Land Tribunal, by Purchase Certificates, over and above the ceiling limit.

In sum, though a plantation-tenant will definitely have the right of ‘fixity’, those tenants will not have the right of assignment (under Section 72B and 72C) over and above the ceiling limit.

Tenants Obligated to Approach the LT for Availing Plantation Exemption

It is beyond doubt – the excess land in possession of a tenant, over which he has fixity of tenure under Section 13 (other than the lands exempted under Section 81), has to be surrendered. If the claimant of Plantation Exemption (under Section 81) is a tenant, he must have approached the Land Tribunal under subsection (3) of Section 85 – within the stipulated time (with respect to each plantation, if he has more plantations under different landlords), because:

(i) subsection (3) of Section 85 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 under Section 72B (or for getting a Certificate to the effect that he is not eligible to purchase any more land, for he is already holding maximum within the limit prescribed under Section 82),
(ii) the Land Tribunal is the only authority to deal with tenancy in this regard (the Land Board or Taluk Land Board – deals with exemption on the ground of plantation, excess land issues, etc. – cannot adjudicate on tenancy-rights),
(iii) Title to the property is not decided by the TLB (Harikumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 44 (Para 9) Jagadeesachandran Nair v. Mamomohanan Pandarathil, 2013 (4) KLT 584 (para 11). Both decisions were referred to in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369 (para 54).
In Ganapathy Acharya v. Bhaskaran (TLV Iyer, J.), ILR 1993-3 (Ker) 736; 1993 2 KLT 962, it is pointed out: “If there is dispute on any of these points necessarily the Land Tribunal has to go into the question of possession and the alleged tenancy”
(iv) the Land Board cannot accept the self-declaration that one is a tenant.
(v) It is not lawful to initiate Suo Motu proceedings (under Section 72C) by the Government, for the benefit of a Plantation Tenant (entitled, within the time allowed, to purchase a certificate below the ceiling limit), because Explanation II to Section 87 disfavours the fragmentation of the plantation land.
- Still, because of subsection (3) of Section 85, the tenant could have obtained a purchase certificate (under Section 72B) within the statutory period.

Note: 1. The entire tenancy-land being vested with the Government by virtue of Section 72, the tenants of the exempted-plantation-land (above the ceiling limit), will be the tenants under the Government liable to pay rent under Section 72E.

2. Under Section 72F(5)(h), the Land Tribunal fixes the rent for the unassigned-exempted-land.

3. These legal principles are adopted in Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, , 2018(3) KLT 283.

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

Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KHC 97.

Following were the basic factual situation in Glen Leven Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (supra) –

The land was leased out by landlords.
The lease-rights came in the petitioners (cultivating tenants) by transfer.

The following were the rival contentions or claims raised by the parties.

Contention of the Government

The tenant was a cultivating tenant. The land (absolutely) vested in the Government under Section 72 KLR Act.
- Hence, tenant would be entitled to get compensation for the improvements (alone) to be determined under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958, in view of Section 20(1) of the KLR Act.

Contention of the Tenants

A cultivating tenant has absolute right to seek assignment (subject to the payment of purchase price in contemplation of Section 72D). Therefore, vesting of rights in the Government under Section 72 is a legal fiction.

Claims of Land-Owners

In view of Section 3(i)(viii), if the extent of the plantation is above 30 acres, and if the land was a plantation (put up by the land owner) when it was leased, the tenant will not be entitled for ‘fixity’; and the land will return to the land owner after the lease-period. Therefore, the land owners (in one Writ Appeal) claimed that the land involved therein was such a land entitled to by them (after the lease period).
Land owners also claimed that Section 72BB(1) gives them a right (i) to apply for assignment to the tenant and (ii) for the payment of the compensation due to him under Section 72A (as regards the property within ceiling limit).

The Division Bench Finding on Vesting Under Section 72

The contention of the Government that the land was (absolutely) vested in it was rejected and held –
- 1. the vesting in Government ‘is a legal fiction‘.
- 2. cultivating tenant ‘has an absolute right to seek assignment‘ subject to the payment of purchase price.

The Division Bench observed as under:

“41. On an indepth analysis of the aforesaid provision, we find that when Section 72 came into force on 01.01.1970, the cultivating tenant is entitled for the assignment of the land for possession, subject to the liabilities fixed under Section 72 of the Act, 1963 to pay the purchase price. As per Section 72C, if no application is filed by the cultivating tenant, the Land Tribunal shall subject to the Rules made by the Government ensure that the assignment is granted to the cultivating tenant, assigning such title and interest to the cultivating tenant entitled thereto, which rights, title and interest are vested with the Government by virtue of the legal fiction created under Section 72 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.”

Tanya Alice Stephen v. Manager, Perumal Smaraka Nidhi, 2025:KER:97401

In this case, the High Court held, on 17.12.2025, to the following effect:

Under Ext. P3, the Land Tribunal “restricted the purchase certificate to an extent of 12 acres and has rejected the claim regarding the balance extent out of 94.54 acres”.
The HC directed the Government on 18.3.2024 to file an affidavit “by the person who authored Ext. P3 explaining and referring to the reasons as to why the earlier decision of the Land Tribunal affirmed in the judgment of the Sub Court, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and the Apex Court was not followed….”
Though a counter affidavit was filed “the affidavit does not explain why the relief was restricted to 12 acres”
It is stated in the affidavit that “the attempt to obtain purchase certificate is an attempt to defeat the KLR Act and to alienate the land vested in the Government and not to pay rent under Section 72E”.
The High Court observed “no such contention is available to the respondents in view of the categoric finding of this court that the lessees … …. are entitled to fixity of tenure”; and that “there is no explanation as to why the finding of this Court affirmed by the Supreme Court have not been followed…..”.

The High Court erroneously interlinked two independent rights—fixity of tenure and the right to obtain a purchase certificate. It failed to advert to the following vital aspects:

Fixity of tenure under Section 13 is conceptually and statutorily distinct from the issuance of a purchase certificate under Section 72B, and the two cannot be conflated.
A purchase certificate can indeed be issued only in respect of land over which tenants have fixity of tenure. However, that does not mean – the stipulation in Section 72B (that the maximum extent to be assigned must be within the ceiling limit) can be ignored.
Sec. 72A directs compensation to the land owner for vesting land under Sec. 72 in Govt. – No right remains with (erstwhile owner) thereafter.
For the land above the ceiling limit, payment is made under Sec. 88 – on surrendering land. It is paid by the Government; not by the tenant. (Under Sec. 72D, the cultivating tenant pays the purchase price for getting the assignment – below the ceiling limit – alone.)
The previous judgment of the High Court with respect to the same land, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, regarding the fixity of tenure (over 94.54 acres), is wholly unrelated to and does not govern the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 72B (7.5 or 15 acres) while issuing a purchase certificate.

The Line of Reasoning Put Forward in the above decisions is Inappropriate.

The interpretative approach adopted by the High Court (an absolute right vests in the tenants to seek assignment—upon payment of the purchase price in contemplation of Section 72D—in respect of the entire land over which tenants have fixity of tenure) appears to be legally untenable.

It is mainly because such lands stand vested in the Government; and upon such vesting, the former tenants are deemed to be tenants under the Government and are statutorily obliged to pay rent to the Government by virtue of Section 72E.

Section 72B, falling under Chapter II of the Act, unequivocally mandates that a purchase certificate may be issued only in respect of land within the prescribed ceiling limit. The exemption provisions, on the other hand, form part of Chapter III and operate independently. It is precisely for this reason that the ceiling-related stipulations were expressly incorporated into Section 72B.

Further, in the event of acquisition of unassigned exempted plantation land vested in the Government, Section 112(5A) specifically provides that no land value shall be payable either to the former landowner or to the tenant.

It goes without saying that the plantation holdings typically extend to hundreds or thousands of acres, of which the assignable extent within the ceiling may be a negligible fraction (7.5 or 15 acres).

Therefore, extending the statutory right of assignment to the vast excess land will stand against the express provisions of the Statute. It will also annihilate the public interest well-visioned by the erudite legislatures considering the well-being of the generations to come, and the whole ecology of the nation.

The High Court failed to consider the Earlier Decisions

In K. Jayaprakashan v. State of Kerala, 2023-3 KLT 541, it is observed as under:
- “Section 72 of the Act deals with vesting of landlord’s rights in Government. As per sub-section (1) of Section 72 …. all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 … shall, subject to the provisions of this section, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the said date”.
In V.N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala (P.T. Raman Nayar, T.C.Raghavan, K.K.Mathew, JJ.) , AIR 1971 Ker 98, it is held as under:
- “By Section 72 the rights of landlords whose rights have not been purchased by cultivating tenants vest in the Government free of all encumbrances on a date to be notified by the Government in that behalf -the date has been notified as the 1st January, 1970”
In Lakshmi v. Rama Iyer, 1992-1 ILR-Ker 398; 1991-2 KLT 897it is pointed out: “Consequently the title and interest of the land-lord would vest in the Government on the appointed day that is, on 1-1-1970. Then as per S. 72Q the land owner would be entitled to recover rent accrued till 1-1-1970 only”.
In Aru v. Nakunni (Padmanabhan, J.), 1987-1 KLT 177, it is held as under:
- “Under S.72 of the Act all the right, title and interest of the land owners and intermediaries in respect of a holding held by a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 shall, subject to the various provisions of S.72, vest in the Government free of all encumbrances created by the land owners and intermediaries and subsisting on the date notified by the Government. ….. When once vesting has taken place there cannot be any further rights in any body. . …. By assignment all such rights vest in the tenant”.

Land Reform Wearied Middle Class Landlords and Tenants

When Land Reform Measures were implemented in the State of Kerala, it wearied small and moderate landlords and tenants, on the bedrock of “ceiling limit”. But the Plantations were not “touched”, taking “the economy” into consideration. Still, the well-visioned legislators were particular to see that the ownership of this large extent of plantations (otherwise thick forest of the Western Ghats) remained with the State. It was based on the principles in 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’.

Conclusion

1. The exemption provisions confer only a limited and conditional right—namely, the right to continue the specified plantation crop alone. Upon conversion of the land or deviation from the permitted use, the exemption will be forfeited, and the land will become fully subject to the statutory regime.

2. It can be stated with legal certainty that:

(i) Where the landowner himself has no vested or proprietary right over land held beyond the ceiling limit, a tenant cannot claim any such right. To hold otherwise would be illogical, irrational, and contrary to settled principles of property law, as a tenant cannot acquire a higher or superior right than that of the landowner.
(ii) Statutory interpretation, particularly when constitutional principles are implicated, must advance the larger public interest, including the interests of the nation and future generations, and not operate to confer benefits on a select class.
(iii) It is wholly unjustifiable to confer disproportionate rights or benefits upon plantation tenants—many of whom are large corporate entities—when even the Maharaja of Travancore was denied retention of land beyond the ceiling limit. It is a sheer fact that thousands of middle-class landowners were divested of their lands under the rigorous operation of the Act.

Read Connected Articles on this Subject:

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

Recovery of Possession:

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

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

General Principles
Dedication and Vesting
Trustees and Management
Breach of Trust
- Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
Suits by or against Trusts
Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
Constitutional Principles
Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
General

Do the Plantation-Tenants have a Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land, beyond the Ceiling Limit (under Purchase Certificates)?

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply