Holding

Conversion of a cashew estate into a plantation before 1 January 1970 is to be ignored under Section 82(4), so the land is treated as cashew estate for ceiling‑area computation and the claimed exemption is rejected.

Summary

P. J. Thomas owned 31.06 acres of land, including 14.5 acres of rubber plantation that had been converted from a cashew estate in 1967. Under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, cashew estates of ten acres or more were exempt from ceiling‑area restrictions until the amendment of 1969, which removed the exemption effective 1 January 1970. Section 82(4) of the Act mandates that any conversion of land specified in Schedule II into another class or a plantation after the Act’s commencement must be ignored when computing the ceiling area. The appellant claimed exemption for the plantation under Section 81(1)(e). The Court held that the conversion, having occurred before 1 January 1970, falls within the mischief of Section 82(4) and must be ignored, so the land is treated as cashew estate, not plantation, and the exemption is denied. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether conversion of a cashew estate into a rubber plantation before 1 January 1970 is covered by sub‑section 4 of Section 82 and must be ignored for ceiling‑area computation.
Whether the plantation thus created can claim exemption under Section 81(1)(e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Whether a voluntary transfer under Section 84 is analogous to a conversion under Section 82(4).

Legislation cited

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963s. 2(44), s. 2(55), s. 81, s. 82(4), s. 84
Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 35 of 1969)

Subjects

Kerala Land Reforms Actceiling areaexemptioncashew estateplantationconversion of landSection 82Section 81Section 84retrospective amendment

Judgment

P. J. THOMAS A
v.
TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.

MARCH 12, 1992

[M.H. KANIA, CJ, N.M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA B
BEEVI, JJ.]

Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 :

Sections 81 to 84-Ceiling area-Computation of-Cashew estate ex- C
empted from Ceiling-Exemption withdrawn from 1.1.197(}-Conversion of
Cashew estate into rubber plantation in 1967-Whether rubber plantation
eligi.ble for exemption.

Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, containing sec-
tions 81 to 98A relating to restriction on ownership and possession of land D
in excess of Ceiling area, came into force on 1.4.1964. However, Section 82
came into force on 1.1.1970, the appointed day. Under this Section the
Ceiling area of land which an individual or a family, as the case may be,
was entitled to hold was fixed. In computing the ceiling area, the lands
exempted under Section 82 was to be excluded. Sub-section (4) of the E
Section provided that where, after the commencement of the Act, any class
of land specified in Schedule II had been converted into any other class of
land specified in that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of land
liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land should
be determined, without taking into consideratfon such conversion.
F
Section 81(1)(1), as it originally stood, exempted cashew estates
existing at the commencement of the Act, and having a contiguous extent
of ten acres or more from the operation of Chapter III. This exemption
was however, taken away by a subsequent amendment by Act. No. 35 of
1969, and, as on 1.l.1970, cashew estate, having an extent of ten acres or G
more was liable to be included in the computation of the ceiling area.
Under Section 81(1)(e), 'Plantation', as defined under the Act was also
exempted. Plantation was also specified in Schedule II.

Under Section 84, all voluntary transfers effected after the date of
publication of Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, by a family or any member H
147
148 liUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A thereof holding land in excess of the ·ceiling area were deemed to be
transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Ad and invalid.

On 1.1.1970, when Section 82 of the Act came. into force, the appellant
was holding 31 acres 6.5 cents of land, including 14.5 acres of rubber
plantation, which was originally cashew estate. The appellant had con-
B verted the cashew estate into rubber plantation in 1967. His claim for
exempting the rubber plantation from the computation under Section
8l(l)(e) was rejected by the Taluk Land Board, in view ofthe provisions
in sub-section (4) of Section 82, since cashew estate was not an exempted
category on 1.1.1970. In revision, the High Court affirmed the Taluk Land
c Boar.d's decision.

In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant, it was
contended that a conversion of land falling under one exempted category ...k.
to another eJ:empted category did not come under the mischief of sub-sec-
tion (4) of Section 82, and that the provisions of Chapter III did not apply
D to the lands specified in Section 81 and that since plantation was not
included in sub-section (4) of Section 82 as it stood before 1.1.1970 and
was included only with effect from 1.1.1970, the conversion of cashew estate
into plantation before the amendment was not attracted by the said
sub-section. ·
E Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : 1.1 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 1.1.1970. The computation of the
F ceiling area has to be made in accordance with the provisions contained
under section 82 as it stood on 1.1.1970. Under sub-section (4) of section 82
where any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into a ~
plantation after the commencement of the Act, the extent of land liable to be 1_
surrendered by a person owning or holding such land has to be determined
without taking into consideration such conversion. Cashew·estate is land
G specified in Schedule II as on 1.4.1964 as well as on 1.1.1970. Therefore, the
conversion of cashew estate after 1.4.1964 and before 1.1.1970 into planta-
tiou would squarely fall under the mischief of this sub-section. The fact that
cashew estate was an exempted category until 1.1.1970 does not make any -r
difference so long a_, the exemption was not available as on 1.1.1970 when the
H computation was to be made. If the exemption continued on 1.1.1970, sub-
P. J. UIO:MAS v. LANffBOARD [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 149

section (6) would entitle the holder to have the land excluded under the A
provisions of sub-section (6). Since the computation is made as on 1.1.1970
and the land held as on that date ignoring the conversion effected after
1.4.1964 is not exempted, the case has no analogy to the transfer of exempted
land prior to 1.1.1970 falling under clause (1). At the time when the transfer
was effected the land was exempted. The provi~ion of section 82 was not B
applicable. It is for that reason that the transfer has to be bend valid. So far.
y·· as conversion is concerned, the land continues to be held by the owner and
the law is clear that such conversion is to be ignored in computing the ceiling
area. [153G-H, 154A-E]

1.2 In the instant case the land, in question, was cashew estate prior C
to 1.4.1964 and it has been converted into rubber plantation after that date
and before 1.1.1970. As the conversion has to be ignored, the land ·could
be treated only as cashew estat.e for the purpose of computation and not
as plantation. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the appellant has been
rightly rejected. [154F]
D
State of Kera/a v. Phi/omina, AIR 1976 SC 2363, distinguished.

Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board, L1979] 3 SCR 839,
referred to.

State of Kera/a v. Thomas, (1987) 1 KLT 530, Ramunni Nair v. State E
of Kerala, (1976) KLT 632 andAleykutty John. v. Taluk La1td Board, (1981)
KLT 731, referred to. ,

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2247 of
~ F
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.80 of the Kerala High
'{ Court in C.R.P.No. 3783 of 1977-A.
_.)...
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and Mrs. K. Prasanthi for
the Appellants. G

Joseph Vellapally, K.R. Nambiar and P.K. Pillai for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F ATHIMA BEEVI, J. Leave granted. H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A This appeal arising from proceedings under the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), as amended by Act 35 of 1969, raises
the question of exemption provided under section 81 of the Act.

The Act is enacted as a comprehensive legislation relating to land
reforms in the State of Kerala. The respective provisions of the Act came
B into force on the appointed days as notified by the Government. Different
days had been appointed for different provisions. Chapter III containing
sections 81 to 98A relates to the restriction on ownership and possession
of land in exce.,s of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands. Except section
83, the other provisions in this Chapter came into force on 1.4.1964.
c 1.1.1970 had been notified as the appointed day on which section 82 was
to be enforced.

Under section 82, the ceiling area of land which an individual or ,__k
family, as the case may be, is entitled to hold has been fixed. In computing
the ceiling area the lands exempted under section 82 shall be excluded.
D Section 82(4) reads -

"S.82(4). Where, after the commencement of this 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 planta-
E tion, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person
owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking
into consideration such conversion."

Section 2(55) defines "standard acre" thus-

F "S.2(55). "standard acre" means in relation to any class of land
specified in Scheduled II situate in the district or Taluk men-
tioned therein, the extent of land specified against it in that
Schedule."

G Schedule II specifies the class of land and the extent of la.nd specified
for the purpose of conversion as standard .acres. Dry land principally
cultivated with cashew is specified under Schedule II as equivalent to two
standard acres. Section 81(1)(f), as it originally stood, exempted cashew
estates existing at the commencement of the Act and having a contiguous
extent of ten acres or more from the operation of Chapter III. Thus at the -y
H commencement of the Act cashew estates having a contiguous extent of ten
P. J. THOMAS v. LAND BOARD [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 151

acres or more was an exempted category. This exemption was taken away A
~ by a subsequent amendment by Act 35 of 1969. Thris, as on 1.1.1970,
cashew estate having an extent of ten acres or more was liable to be
included in the computation of the ceiling area. "Plantation" has been
defined in section 2(44) thus-

"S.2(44). "Plantation" means any land used by a person prin- B
cipally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, car-
damom or .cinnamon (hereinafter in this clause referred to as
'plantation crops') and includes -

(a) land used by the said person for any purpose ancillary C
to the cultivation of plantation crops or for the preparation of
the same for the market;

(b) land contiguous to, or in the vicinity of, or within the
boundaries of, the area cultivated with plantation crops, not
exceeding twenty per cent of the area so cultivated and reserved D
by the said person and fit for the expansion of such cultivation;

(c) agricultural lands, interspersed within the boundaries of
the area cultivated by the said person with plantation crops,
not exceeding such extent as may be determined by the L~nd
Board or the Taluk Land Board as necessary for the protection E
and efficient management of such cultivation.

Explanation : - Lands used for the construction of office
buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for workmen, hospitals,
schools and play grounds shall be deemed to be lands used for
the purpose of sub-clama~(a)."
F

"Plantation", as defined in the Act, is exempted under clause(e) of
sub-section(l) of section 81. "Plantation" is also land specified in Schedule
II.

The appellant, as on 1.1.1970, was holding 31 acres 6.5 cents of land.
G
This includes 14.5 acres of rubber plantation which was originally cashew
estate. The appellant converted cashew estate into rubber plantation in
1967. The claim for exempting the rubber plantation from the computation
was rejected by the Taluk Land 'Board in view of the provisions in sub-sec-
tion (4) of section 82 orrthe ground that cashew estate was not an exempted H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A category on 1.1.1970. The High Court in revision affirmed the decision of
the Taluk Land Board on this point.

The appellant, while reiterating the claim for exemption under sec-
tion 81(1)(e), has urged that a conversion of land falling under one ex-
empted category to another exempted category does not come under the
B mischief of sub-section(4) and, therefore, the impugned decision is wrong.
Shri Krishnamurthy Iyer, the senior counsel for the appellant, maintains
that the provisions of Chapter lII do not apply to the lands specified ~
section 81 and if the provisions do not apply, section 82(4) in Chapter I
can have no application to plantation. It is, therefore, argued that conver-
C sion of any land into plantation is not attracted by sub-section (4) of section
82. Another limb of his argument is that sub-section (4) of section 82 has
been amended from time to time and as it stood before 1.1.1970, plantation
was not included in that sub-section .. Since plantation has been included
only with effect from 1.1.1970, the conversion of cashew estate into plan-
D tation before the amendment is not attracted by the sub-section. The
learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in State of Kera/a
v. Philomina, AIR 1976 SC 2363. That decision related to transfer falling
under section 84(3). Kayal Padasekharams of Kuttanad area specified in
Schedule IV so long as such padasekharams are used for the cultivation of
paddy or such other crops as the Government may notify, had been
E exempted under clause (I) of sub-section (1) of section 81. This clause was,
however, omitted by Act 35 of 1964. Under section 84 all voluntary trans-
fers effected .after the date of publication of Kerala Land Reforms Bill,
1963 by a family or any member thereof holding land in excess of the ceiling
. area shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of
F the Act and shall be invalid. In State of Kera/a v. Thomas, (1987) 1 KLT
530, the question arose whether- voluntary transfers of Kayal Padasek-
harams made between 15.9.63 and 1.1.70 were invalid. The High Court of
Kerala held that such transfers were valid. That decision was affirmed by
this Court in State of Kera/a v. Pltilomina (supra). On the ratio of this
decision it was maintained that the provision contained in section 84(3) did
G not have any repercussion at all on the exemptions granted under section
81(1) was not effected. This Court stated .thus -

"So even though by virtue of section 84 of the Act all voluntary
transfors effected after September 15, 1963 (date of publication
H of the Kerala Land Reforms Bil)., 1963 in the Gazette) were
P. J. THOMAS v. LAND BOARD [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 153

invalid, the transfers made in respect of Kayal padasekharams A
in appeals No.907-909 could not be held to be invalid for the
simple reason that they were exempt from the provisions of
Chapter III. That exemption was no doubt withdrawn by section
65 of Act 35 of 1969 which amended the Act but it is not
disputed before us that the section was not brought into force B
until January 1, 1970. The voluntary transfers made between
September 15, 1963 and January 1, 1970 were therefore valid,
and there is no force in the argument of the Advocate General
that the amendment brought about by section 65 of Act 35 of
1969 should be given retrospective effect from April 1, 1964 as
Sections 82 and 84 of the Act were brought into force from C
that date. There is also no force in the other argument of the
Advocate General that Section 84 had the effect of invalidating
the transfers effected after September 15, 1963 for that was the
date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill in the
gazette. The argument overlooks the fact that, as has been D
mentioned, Kayal lands were exempt from the provisions of
Chapter III until as late as January 1, 1970.

It is well settled that a statute is not to be read retrospectively E
except of necessity. There is no such necessity in the cases
before us, for the legislature decided to exempt the aforesaid
Kayal lands from the operation of the restrictions and even
though amending Act 35 of 1969 was promulgated on Decem-
ber 17, 1969. Section 65 thereof which withdrew the exemption,
was not brought into force until January 1, 1970." F

It is argued that the same principle should be applied in respect of
exemption falling under clause(t) of sub-section(l) of section 81. Reliance
has also been placed on Full Bench decision in Ramunni Nair v. State of
Kera/a, (1976) KLT 632 and Chettiam Veetti/ Ammad v. Taluk Land Board, G
[1979] 3 SCR 839.

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 1.1.1970. The computation of the
ceiling area has to be made in accordance with the provisions contained H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A under section 82 as it stood on 1.1.1970. Under sub-section(4) of section
82 where any class of land specified in Scheduld II has been converted
into a pfantation after the commencement of the Act, the extent of 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 land specified in Scheduled II as on 1.4.1964 as well as on 1.1.1970.
B
Therefore, the conversion of cashew estate after 1.4.1964 and before
1.1.1970 into plantation would squarely fall under the mischief of this
sub-section. The fact that cashew estate was an exempted category until
1.1.1970 does not make any difference so long as the exemption was not
available as on 1.1.1970 when the computation was to be made. If the
c exemption continued on 1.1.1970, sub-section(6) would entitle the holder
to have the land excluded under the provisions of sub-section(6). Since the
computation is made as on 1.1.1970 and the land held as on that date
ignoring the conversion effected after 1.4.1964 is not exempted the case has
no analogy to the transfer of exempted land prior to 1.1.1970 falling under
D clause (1). At the time when the transfer was effected the land was
exempted. The provision of section 82 was not applicable. It is for that
reason that the transfer has to be held valid. So far as conversion is
concerned, the land continue to be held by the owner and the law is clear
that such conversion is to be ignored in computing the ceiling area. There
is, therefore, no force in the contention advanced on the basis of aforesaid
E decision.

We shall also refer to the decision of the Kerala High Court in
Aleykutty John v. Ta/uk Land Board, (1981) KLT 731 and Ramunni Nair v.
State of Kera/a, (1976) KLT 632. There has not been serious controversy
on the fact that the land in question was cashew estate prior to 1.4.1964
F and that it had been converted into rubber plantation after that date and
before 1.1.1970. As the conversion has to be ignored the land could be
treated only as cashew estate for the purpose of computation and not as ):
plantation. The exemption claimed has been rightly rejected. '
~
There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
G
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.