2004 (12) TMI 685 - SC - Indian Laws

Claim for excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Act or claiming exemption of any land as not falling within the ceiling area at all - Exclusion of 'fuel area' and 'rested area' from the plantation which is otherwise exempt from the limitation of ceiling area under the provisions of the Kerala Land reforms Act, 1963 ('the Act') - Applicability of the principle of res judicata and issue estoppel - HELD THAT - To the extent that Tulak Land Board by its order dated July 26, 1980 upheld the claim of the appellant to 263.83 acres as agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops cannot be failed. though under the heads 'fuel area' and 'rested tea area' there was difference of opinion among the Chairman and other members of the Tulak Land Board there was unamimity between them on the question of area of 263.83 acres falling under the head 'other agricultural land interspersed'. It cannot be said that Taluk Land Board, while determining this area, did not take into consideration relevant factors as mentioned in clause (c) of Section 2(44) of the Act. We do not think it was necessary for the High Court to lay down any further guidelines than what are given in the provision and for that purpose to remand the matter again to the Taluk Land Board. We would, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court to that extent. Since the appellant never claimed exemption outside the ceiling area on the ground of cardamam plantation the question was never gone into in the earlier proceedings of this Court. This point, therefore, could not be agitated before the Taluk Land Board dealing with the matter on remand as finality attached to the areas under the fuel area and rested tea area for which exemption was not or fully granted. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to go into the question if cardamom plantation existed at the relevant time. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the High Court on the extent of 'fuel area' and 'rested tea area' as determined finally by this Court and would dismiss the appeal limited to this extent. Though we have upheld the order of the High Court mainly on the grounds of res judicata and estoppel, submission of the appellant commands to us that they have given opportunity to approach the State Government to seek exemption under provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act. This is particularly so as a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that supply of fuel wood to employees is for the purpose connected with the plantation, which is a later decision of the two Judge Bench decision of this Court. Further that rested tea area is a part of tea plantation was not properly projected before this Court as has been rightly contended by Mr. Salve. It is a matter of experience and on reference to authoritative text books if rested tea areas are part of the plantation. We allow the appellant to approach the State government to seek exemption under Sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act. With these observation the appeal stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of exemption for 136.17 acres as rested tea area.
2. Claim of exemption for 421.88 acres as cardamom plantation and 302.13 acres as other agricultural land interspersed within the fuel area.
3. Claim of exemption for 263.63 acres as other agricultural lands interspersed with cardamom crops.

Summary:

1. Claim of Exemption for 136.17 Acres as Rested Tea Area:
The Supreme Court previously addressed the exclusion of "fuel area" and "rested area" from the plantation exempt from the ceiling area under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Taluk Land Board initially disallowed the appellant's claims for exemption as 'fuel areas' and 'rested tea area'. The High Court restored these claims, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, restoring the Taluk Land Board's orders. Upon remand, the Taluk Land Board exempted the 136.17 acres as part of the plantation based on the affidavit and local inspection, which indicated the presence of tea plants over 60 years old. The High Court, however, set aside this exemption, holding that the Taluk Land Board could not revisit this issue after the Supreme Court's earlier decision.

2. Claim of Exemption for 421.88 Acres as Cardamom Plantation and 302.13 Acres as Other Agricultural Land Interspersed Within the Fuel Area:
The appellant claimed that 421.88 acres within the fuel area contained cardamom plantation dating back prior to April 1, 1964, and should be exempt. The Taluk Land Board accepted this claim, but the High Court rejected it, stating that there was no foundation for such a claim in the original return. The High Court noted that the appellant did not claim any land under cardamom plantation in its initial statement and thus could not seek exemption on this ground later. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, citing principles of res judicata and estoppel, preventing the re-litigation of this issue.

3. Claim of Exemption for 263.63 Acres as Other Agricultural Lands Interspersed with Cardamom Crops:
The High Court remanded the issue of 263.63 acres of land interspersed within the plantation boundaries to the Taluk Land Board for re-determination. The Supreme Court found that the Taluk Land Board had the authority to determine the extent of such land necessary for the protection and efficient management of the plantation crops. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order to remand this matter, affirming the Taluk Land Board's decision to exempt this area.

Additional Observations:
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant to approach the State Government to seek exemption under Sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act, particularly in light of the three-judge bench decision in Pioneer Rubber Plantation vs. State of Kerala & Anr., which held that supply of fuel wood to employees is connected with the plantation. The Court granted the appellant six weeks to apply to the State Government, with the stay granted by the Court to continue until a decision is made. The appeal was partly allowed with no order as to costs.