SUBRAMONIA IYER Vs. JOSEPH GEORGE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This civil revision petition is by the landlord under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Two points have been raised by his counsel. According to him the land in question is not a kole nilam as defined in S.2(24). That definition is in these terms:
" (24) 'kole nilam' means land in the bed of any kayal, or lake, or any water-logged land in areas adjoining or lying within the vicinity of any kayal, lake or river, on which paddy is cultivated by raising bunds on one or more sides and draining the water away by mechanical or other means, and includes
(i) kole or punjakole nilam in the districts of Palghat and Trichur; and
(ii) water logged land in the taluks of Hosdrug and Kasaragod commonly known as 'Avi' land, on which paddy is cultivated by raising bunds on one or more sides and draining the water away by bailing;"
(2.) The other points raised are that in fixing the fair rent, the Land Tribunal as well as the appellate authority have relied on the statistics published under S.44 of the Act for the year 1963-1964 which was the statistics available at the time the application was moved in June 1964 and not the statistics that was available at the time of the decision, viz., that of 1965-1966. This, it is contended, is erroneous.
(3.) The argument as regards the first point raised turns on the construction of the definition which we have extracted. It is not disputed before us, and rightly we think that there was evidence available before the Tribunal to show that the land in question is situate in a larger area which is water logged and in which cultivation is effected by raising bunds and by pumping water out by mechanical means. In fact Pw 1 has specifically sworn to these facts. It is no doubt true that he had admitted in cross examination that in the holding in question no bunds are erected and that there is no need for it. On the basis of this admission counsel for the revision petitioner has urged that the holding is not a kole nilam as defined in S.2(24). The argument is that every bit of land claimed to be a kole nilam must be cultivated by erecting bunds around it and by pumping water by mechanical process. We are unable to accept this argument. It seems to us that it is enough if the cultivation in the area in question is effected by raising bunds in the larger area. Every bit of land, situate within that area where cultivation is so effected will become part of a kole nilam. We therefore reject the first contention urged by counsel for the revision petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.