STATE OF KERALA Vs. KASI RAM
LAWS(SC)-2003-3-124
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
March 11,2003
STATE OF KERALA
Appellant
VERSUS
Kasi Ram
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PRESIDENT HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD VS. K M JOSEPH [REFERRED TO]ARYA ANTHARJ ANAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These appeals arise from the orders of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 1032 of 1988-B on 29.6.1989 and in Review Petition No. 14 of 1990 on 5.4.1990 (seeking to review the order dated 29.6.1989 in the revision petition).
(2.)The short point that arises in these appeals is, whether the respondent was in default in not filing return u/s. 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The respondent constituted a family. It is an admitted case that as on 1.1.1970, the notified date, the family did not hold any excess land. However, the Taluk Land Board initiated proceedings against the respondent alleging that on account of the death of one of the members of the family, the holding of the respondent as an individual has exceeded the ceiling limit and, therefore, he ought to have filed a return u/s. 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") which he failed to do. The respondent filed objection to the initiation of the proceedings. On 4.6.1988, the Taluk Land Board held that, on account of the death of one of the members of the family, there was excess land of .65 hectares and directed its surrender. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1032 of 1988-B before the High Court of Kerala. On 29.6.1989, the High Court, following the view taken by it in Arya Antharjanam V/s. State of Kerala and Hajumma V/s. State of Kerala set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board. The High Court held that if there was any excess land acquired by the family, that was to be the subject-matter of return u/s. 87 of the Act. In that case, there was no excess land as no land was acquired by the family on account of the death of one of the members of the family, therefore, there can be no surrender of the land. Dissatisfied with the said order, the State filed Review Petition No. 14 of 1990. On 5.4.1990, the High Court dismissed the review petition. That is how these two appeals came to be filed impugning the said orders.
(3.)Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to put in an appearance either in person or through counsel, but has sent counter-affidavit by post.
(2.)The short point that arises in these appeals is, whether the respondent was in default in not filing return u/s. 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The respondent constituted a family. It is an admitted case that as on 1.1.1970, the notified date, the family did not hold any excess land. However, the Taluk Land Board initiated proceedings against the respondent alleging that on account of the death of one of the members of the family, the holding of the respondent as an individual has exceeded the ceiling limit and, therefore, he ought to have filed a return u/s. 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") which he failed to do. The respondent filed objection to the initiation of the proceedings. On 4.6.1988, the Taluk Land Board held that, on account of the death of one of the members of the family, there was excess land of .65 hectares and directed its surrender. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1032 of 1988-B before the High Court of Kerala. On 29.6.1989, the High Court, following the view taken by it in Arya Antharjanam V/s. State of Kerala and Hajumma V/s. State of Kerala set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board. The High Court held that if there was any excess land acquired by the family, that was to be the subject-matter of return u/s. 87 of the Act. In that case, there was no excess land as no land was acquired by the family on account of the death of one of the members of the family, therefore, there can be no surrender of the land. Dissatisfied with the said order, the State filed Review Petition No. 14 of 1990. On 5.4.1990, the High Court dismissed the review petition. That is how these two appeals came to be filed impugning the said orders.
(3.)Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to put in an appearance either in person or through counsel, but has sent counter-affidavit by post.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.