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

PETITIONER: THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOZHIKODE & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. BABUCOMMEN THOMAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR   97            1995 SCC  (6) 155  JT 1995 (6)   290        1995 SCALE  (5)138

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       O R D E R      Leave granted.      Respondent admittedly  had purchased  cashew nut estate on April 16, 1969. The State Government of Kerala introduced the Land  Reforms Bill,  1963 on  April 1,  1964. One of the clauses relates  to taking  away  exemption  of  cashew  nut estate or its conversion from the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,  1963 [for short, ’the Act’]. The Bill was made Act 35  of 1969  with effect  from January  1, 1970. Section 82(4) of  the Act declares that where after the commencement of the  Act, any  class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted  into any  other class  of land  specified in that Schedule  or into  a plantation,  the  extent  of  land liable to  surrendered by  a person  owning or  holding such land shall  be determined  without taking into consideration such conversion. Section 84 (1) reads thus :      "84. Certain  voluntary transfers  to be      null and  void.  -  (1)  Notwithstanding      anything contained  in any  law for  the      time  being   in  force,  all  voluntary      transfers effected  after  the  date  of      publication of  the Kerala  Land Reforms      Bill, 1963,  in the  Gazette,  otherwise      than -           (i) by way of partition; or           x      x       x       x        x           (iii) in favour of a person who was           a tenant  of the holding before the           27th July,  1960, and  continued to           be so till the date of transfer;           x      x      x         x        x      by a  family or any member thereof or by      an  adult  unmarried  person  owning  or      holding land  in excess  of the  ceiling      area or otherwise than by way of gift in

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

    favour of his son or daughter or the son      or daughter  of his  pre-deceased son or      daughter by any person owning or holding      land in excess of the ceiling area shall      be deemed  to be transfers calculated to      defeat the  provisions of  this Act  and      shall be invalid. "                          (Emphasis supplied )      The voluntary sale is not one of the exempted transfers mentioned in Section 84(1). On the other hand, all voluntary transfers other  than those excepted, should be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and should be  invalid. The  question, therefore, is whether the land purchased  by the respondent was intended to defeat the purposes of the Act and is invalid.      This Court P.J. Thomas vs. Taluk Land Board and Others. [(1993 )  Supp. (1)  SCC 300  ] considered  the question  of transfer and  conversion under  Section 82(4)  and held that the conversion  of cashew  estate also will not be saved and it will  come squarely  within the mischief of Section 84(1) of Act.  This is what the Court held : "The transfer falling under Section 84 cannot be equated to the conversion falling under Section  82(4). The  ceiling provisions  contained  in Sections 82  and 83  came into force on January 1, 1970. The computation of the ceiling area has to be made in accordance with the  provisions contained  under Section 82 as it stood on January  1, 1970.  Under Section 82(4) where any class of land specified  in Schedule  II has  been converted  into  a plantation after  the commencement of the Act, the extent of the land  liable to  be surrendered  by a  person owning  or holding such  land has  to be determined without taking into consideration such  conversion.  Cashew  estate  is  a  land specified in  Schedule II  as on April 1, 1964 as well as on January 1,  1970. Therefor,  the conversion of cashew estate after  April  1,  1964  and  before  January  1,  1970  into plantation would  squarely come  under the  mischief of this sub-section".      The facts  of this  case stand on a higher footing than the facts  therein. In this case, section 84(1) specifically declares such  voluntary transfers  to be  invalid. In other words, such transfers are void and of no effect. Admittedly, the transfer  was  effected  within  the  prohibited  period namely between April 1, 1964 and January 1, 1970. Therefore, the sale is a void sale. Thereby the respondents cannot save the cashew  land purchased  under the  void  sale  from  the purview of the Act.      Mr. Balakrishnan,  learned counsel  for the respondent, then sought  to rely  on Section  85 (1) explanation (a) and contended that  the respondent having purchased the land was transferee under  the transfer and, therefore, his rights in the land  were not affected but the extent of land purchased can be  calculated for  fixing the  extent  of  land  to  be surrendered and  the company should be directed to surrender excess land  excluding the  land under  the sale. We fail to appreciate the  contention. The  purpose of  Section  85(1), clause (a)  to the  Explanation seems to be that such of the transfers effected within the prohibited period and saved by sub-s. (1)  of Section 84 were treated to be valid transfers and to  that  extent  they  cannot  have  any  effect  while directing  surrender  of  the  excess  land.  But  voluntary transfers which  are void,  cannot be saved in computing the excess land under Section 85 of the Act. Therefore, the High Court was  clearly in  error in  its judgment dated June 27, 1989 in  C.R.P. No.  879/89 that  the lands  get exempted by clause (a) to the Explanation to Section 85 (1) of the Act.

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

    Mr. Balakrishnan  also seeks to place reliance on State of Kerala vs. Philomina etc. etc. & Ors., [(1977 ) 1 SCR 273 ]. The  ratio therein  was also  considered and explained by this Court  in P.J.  Thomas’s case  (supra). We respectfully agree with the reasoning in Thomas case.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.