Angra Poojary and Others vs Akkani alias Jalaja Marakalthy and Others

M.F. Saldanha, J.—I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides as also the learned Government Advocate for the State and the

Tribunal on merits.

This case is not only representative but, very characteristic of some of the harsh and unfair consequences that have arisen as a result of the

implementation of the Land Reforms Act at times. The Petitioner is aggrieved as far as this writ petition is concerned by the fact that an area of 10

cents out of the over-all area of 55 cents in Sy. No. 124/2A has not been granted to the Petitioner. The contention raised is that the land is

agricultural land insofar as there are fruit trees and coconut trees on it and according to the Petitioner, the Petitioner''s farmhouses are also located

there. This factual position is disputed by the other side but, it does appear from the order passed by the Tribunal that some sort of

survey/inspection has taken place and pursuant to that the Tribunal excluded a small area of 10 cents which remained with the Respondent-

landlord. The order in question was passed on 21.5.1981 and it was only in about January, 1985, that the Petitioner states that a notice was issued

for a survey as the 10 cents was to be bifurcated from the lands allotted to the Petitioner i.e., the area of 45 cents in Sy. No. 124/2A. The

Petitioner''s case is that until this time, the Petitioner was under the impression that the Tribunal had granted the whole of the survey number. That is

the reason for the delay of 4 years which this Court has already condoned.

At the hearing, the Petitioners'' learned Counsel vehemently submitted that there was really no valid justification for the exclusion of the area of

10 cents and it was her further submission that this would be manifestly unfair to the Petitioner because, the Petitioner resides there and also

benefits from the fruit trees which are on that area of land. The contention is that since the exclusion was wrong, the case should be remanded to

the Tribunal for a fresh examination in respect of this disputed area of 10 cents so that a fresh order according to law can be passed. The

Respondents'' learned Counsel has submitted that on the facts of the present case, in the first instance, no relief should be granted insofar as the

challenge itself is belated. In support of this submission he points out that the Petitioner''s son had filed a separate application in respect of the area

of 10 cents which has been rejected. The correct position has been pointed out by the Petitioner''s learned Advocate because, she states that it

was not really a rejection on merits, but that the Petitioner''s son did not press the application because of the fact that his mother had also claimed

the same area of land. Whatever be the position, the application in question was disposed of as rejected and there is no challenge in respect of that

area of land. The Petitioner also did not challenge the order and seeks to state that the Petitioner was unaware of the fact that 10 cents had been

excluded. I am not prepared to accept this position because the Petitioner has been successful by and large as far as the remaining claims are

concerned, and other formalities have to be completed after the Tribunal allots the lands and the contention therefore that the Petitioner was

ignorant of the exclusion is totally unacceptable. If this aspect of the case is strictly construed, the Petitioner would be totally disqualified from

presenting a belated challenge. The other aspect in relation to this class of cases which this Court needs to restate very firmly is that the provisions

of the Land Reforms Act are not to be overused or abused to the extent of impoverishing and pauperising the opposite party. While the Land

Reforms Act was intended to bring about social justice to persons who were in occupation and cultivation. If in its implementation this concept is

caused to extremes, it would have disastrous consequences and the present case is a classical illustration where the Petitioner having got as much

as 55 cents has still gone on litigating in order to grab the small area of 10 cents that was excluded. The reason why I need t refer to this aspect of

the case is because the Respondents'' learned Counsel has vehemently submitted that while adjudicating land reforms cases, it is paramount for the

Court to bear in mind the concept of doing real and substantial justice and ensuring that justice is done to one party not at the expense of the other

party. On the facts of the present case, to my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that more than substantial justice has been done to the Petitioner

and on this ground alone there is no warrant for the old litigation to be reopened. Apart from this, I have also indicated substantial reasons why at

this late stage, this Court would be erring if any remand order reopening were to be permitted. Under these circumstances, the writ petition fails

and stands dismissed. No order as to costs.