State of Kerala vs Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Chittur and Others

P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.—An extent of 0.1040 hectare of land in R.S. No. 620/2 and 0.0121 hectare in R.S. No. 889/3 of Kunnamkattupathi Village was acquired by the Government for the formation of an irrigation canal. The notification u/s 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 28-12-1976. The land acquisition officer, Chittur passed an award on 8-3-1977 fixing the compensation for the land acquired at Rs. 1730,96. Since there was dispute regarding apportionment, the compensation was deposited in the lower court and a reference u/s 32 of the Act was issued. The third respondent is the tenant in possession of the land acquired. The jenmom right belonged to the fifth respondent, the Cochin Devaswom Board. The Government of Kerala represented by the Collector contended that by virtue of the provisions of Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act the landlord''s rights in the land held by a cultivating tenant have vested in the Government and the compensation due to the landlord is to be paid to the Government. The court below has held that by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (9) of Section 66 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act there had been no vesting of the jenmom right belonging to the Cochin Devaswom Board and hence the fifth respondent-Devaswom Board is entitled to the compensation due to the Jenmi''s interest in the property. Accordingly the court below has awarded 80% of the compensation to be paid to the cultivating tenant and the remaining 20% to the fifth respondent-the Cochin Devaswom Board. It is against this that the State has come up in appeal. There is no dispute that an application for annuity filed under subsection (1) of Section 65 of the Land Reforms Act was pending on the date on which Section 72 of the Act came into force. Sub-Section (9) of Section 66 requires the Government to issue a notification in the Gazette declaring that the right, title and interest of the institution in respect of holdings specified in the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 65 shall vest in the Government with effect from a date to be specified in the notification. It is for the reason that no such notification under sub-section (9) of Section 66 had been issued that the lower court has held that the rights of the landlord, namely, the Cochin Devaswom Board have not vested in the Government. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant brought to my notice the amended provisions of Section 72N of the Act. Under subsection (1A) of Section 72N applications by religious, charitable or educational institutions of a public nature for annuity pending on the date notified by the Government under sub-section (1) of Sec. 72 of the Act shall abate and all applications received afterwards will also abate on the date on which the applications are received by the Land Board. As per sub-section (1B) enacted for the removal of doubts the annuity payable to a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature whose application abates under sub-section (1A) shall be determined by the Land Tribunal u/s 72F and Section 66 will not apply for such determination. Subsections (1A) and (1B) of Section 72N were introduced by the amending Act 25 of 1971 which came into force on 11-8-1971. The mere fact that an application for annuity filed under sub-section (1) of Section 65 was pending determination u/s 66 on the date on which Section 72 came into force is no longer of any consequence in regard to the question of vesting of the landlord''s rights in the Government. As per the amended provisions introduced by subsection (1A) and (1B) of S. 72N all such applications for annuity stand abated and there is no question for determination under S. 66 of the Act. Sec. 72 itself does not provide for postponement of the vesting for the reason of the pendency of an application under sub-sec. (1) of S. 65 by a religious on charitable institution of a public nature for annuity in respect of the landlord''s interests in a holding held by a cultivating tenant. It is thus clear that the landlord''s rights in the holding have vested in the Government and the fifth respondent-Cochin Devaswom Board is not entitled to compensation for the landlord''s interests in respect of the land acquired.

The result, therefore, is that in modification of the decree of the court below there will be a direction for payment of the 20% of the compensation determined as representing the landlord''s interests in the land acquired to the appellant Government. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.