http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: P.K.  ABRAHAM THARAKAN (D) THROUGH LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/2000

BENCH: S.N.Phukan, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J U D G M E N T

     S.  N.  Variava, J.

     This  Appeal is against the Judgment dated 5th  March, 1997 passed by the High Court of Kerala.

     Briefly  stated the facts are as follows:  The present Appellants  are  the legal heirs of one Mr.   Ouseph  Joseph (since  deceased).   The  said Ouseph Joseph  had  a  family consisting  of  himself, his wife and four major sons.   The said  Ouseph Joseph had made a declaration under the  Kerala Land  Reforms Act claiming exemption from the ceiling limits on the ground that his lands fell in a rubber plantation and were,  therefore,  exempted  from the ceiling  limits.   The total  exemption  claimed  on the basis of it  being  rubber plantation was an area of approximately 95.24 acres.  He had also  claimed exemption for approximately 3.05 acres as land ancillary to the cultivation of the rubber plantation.  This was  the  land  on which there were structures  like  rubber nursery,  quarters  of Superintendents, smoke house,  Office building, rolling shed etc.

     The  total area held by the said Ouseph Joseph and his family  was  an  area of 122.35 acres.  As  there  were  six members  in  the family, the share of each member was  20.39 acres.   It  must  be mentioned that in the  total  area  of 122.35  acres there was an area of dry land of approximately 24.30  acres.   Each of the sons claimed, before  the  Taluk Land  Board, that their area of 20.39 acres each was totally exempted  from  ceiling as it was an old rubber  plantation. In  respect  of  the claims of the four  sons,  by  separate Orders,  the Taluk Land Board upheld the claims of the  sons and  exempted  an  area of 20.39 acres for each son  on  the basis that it was a rubber plantation.  We are informed that Revision  Applications  filed by the Government against  the Orders  passed  by  the Taluk Land Board, so  exempting  the lands of the sons, were all dismissed.

     Thereafter,  the father, on behalf of himself and  the mother,  made  a claim for exemption of 40.78 acres  on  the ground  that this was also a part of the rubber  plantation. This  time  the Taluk Land Board took note of the fact  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the  total  area of the land of the family was  only  122.35 acres.   It  took note of the fact that in this  area  24.30 acres  was dry land and that only approximately 95 acres was rubber  plantation with ancillary land of approximately of 3 acres.   The Taluk Land Board took note of the fact that the four  sons had already claimed exemption in respect of their shares  of 20.39 acres each.  The Taluk Land Board held that as  the  sons had already claimed exemption, and  there  had been  no objection by the parents, it followed that the  dry land  of 24.30 acres could only be in the land which came to the  share of the parents.  The Taluk Land Board, therefore, deducted  an  area of 24.30 acres.  However, the Taluk  Land Board  has,  for  unphantomable reasons,  taken  the  rubber plantation  to  107.25 acres and deducted 24.30  acres  from that.   The  Taluk  Land  Board granted  exemption  for  the balance  area.   As against this Order, a Revision  Petition No.  2386 of 1990 was filed before the High Court.  The High Court  rejected the Revision by the impugned Order dated 5th March, 1997.

     While  rejecting the Revision Petition the High  Court has noted all the above mentioned facts.  The High Court has noted  that the Taluk Land Board had by mistake counted  the rubber  plantation to be 107.25 acres, wherein, in fact,  it was only 95 acres.  The High Court noted that the Taluk Land Board  had granted exemption in excess of the claim made  by the  declarant and in excess of what the family was entitled to.   The High Court, however, chose not to interfere as  no Revision  had been filed by the Government against the Order of  the  Taluk Land Board.  The High Court rejected, in  our view  rightly, the contention that as the claims of the sons to  the  extent  of 20.39 acres each had been  accepted  the claim  of  the  parents was also to be accepted.   The  High Court  rightly  rejected  the contention that  all  the  six sharers  were  entitled to get an area of 20.39  acres  each exempted.

     Before  us  it has been contended that there were  six sharers  in  the  land  belonging  to  the  family.   It  is submitted  that  share of each came to 20.39 acres.   It  is submitted  that  the total therefore comes to 122.35  acres. It  is  submitted that the earlier Orders of the Taluk  Land Board (which were confirmed in Revision) exempting shares of all  the sons were binding.  It is submitted that the  Taluk Land  Board could not have taken a contrary decision in  the case  of  the parents.  It is submitted that earlier it  had been  held that the whole land was a rubber plantation.   It is  submitted that now the Taluk Land Board could not take a contrary  decision.  We see no substance in this submission. It is clear from the records, including the declaration made by  the  parents, that the rubber plantation was only of  95 acres.   Another  approximately 3 acres was ancillary  land. This  was  the  area  for which exemption  could  have  been granted.   Out of the total area of 122.35 acres an area  of approximately  24.30 acres was dry land.  This area of 24.30 acres  was, therefore, not a rubber plantation and was  also not  ancillary land.  This area could not be exempted  under Sections  81, 82 and 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.   As the  parents had not objected to each of the sons getting an area  of 20.39 acres exempted, a total area of approximately 81.66  acres had already been exempted.  Therefore, all that could  have  been exempted was approximately  another  16.34 acres.    The  Taluk  Land   Board  has  mistakenly  granted exemption  for an area of approximately 24 acres.  Thus, the Taluk Land Board had granted exemption of more than what the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

parties  were entitled to.  However, the Government did  not file  any  Revision.   Therefore,  the High  Court  did  not interfere.   We also see no reason to interfere.  But it  is clear  that the Appellants are bound to surrender an area of 16.95 acres, which they have been directed to do by the High Court.

     In  our  view,  the impugned  Judgment  is  absolutely correct   and   requires  no    interference.    Under   the circumstances,  the Appeal stands dismissed.  There will  be no order as to costs.