Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – ss.2(5) and 81(1)(q) – Width and amplitude of the expression ‘commercial site’ – Appellant requested environmental clearance to carry out quarrying operations on land – Permission was granted – Writ petition was filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 – Respondents objected that the land in question cannot be used for a purpose other than plantation, especially for quarrying operations – Single Judge of the High Court doubted the correctness of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Kerala v. Mohammedali Haji, which held that quarry falls within the ambit of ‘commercial site’ and it was exempted from the applicability of the Act – Single Judge referred the matter to the larger Bench – In the larger Bench, the majority opinion was in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 & .2 and held that land which is used for quarrying is not covered by the expression ‘commercial site’, therefore, there can be no exemption of such land from the Act – On appeal, held: There is a definite distinction between the expression ‘lands’ and ‘sites’ in the context in which they have been used in the Act – Commercial sites read along with the other clauses dealing with sites clearly indicate that land occupied by structure is described as ‘site’ – The expression ‘commercial site’ cannot take into its fold vacant lands, including lands used for the purpose of quarrying – It has a restrictive meaning in comparison to the other categories of ‘land’ in s.81 – Therefore, quarry cannot fit into the terms ‘commercial site’ – There is no error in the majority opinion of the Full Bench of the High Court – Appeals dismissed.
Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial legislation – Held: Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a purpose-oriented approach – The Act should receive a liberal construction to promote its objects – Also, literal construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation has to be avoided – It is the Court’s duty to discern the intention of the legislature in making the law – Once such an intention is ascertained, the statute should receive a purposeful or functional interpretation – Exceptions to beneficial legislation should be narrowly interpreted.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the statute was designed to remedy should first be identified and then a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy should be adopted. It is settled law that exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare legislations should be given strict construction. [Para 13] [939-F]
2. There is no dispute that the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is a beneficial legislation. The extent of land that can be held is fixed and any land in excess has to be surrendered to the Government, which is distributed in favour of the landless in the State. The interpretation of the provisions of the Act should be in a manner which promote the said object. [Para 14] [940-B]
3. Section 81 exempts among others, lands comprised of mills, factories or workshops, lands occupied by educational institutions, and lands owned by Universities, religious and charitable institutions. House sites, sites of temples, churches and mosques, sites of buildings including warehouses and commercial sites are also exempted. There is a definite distinction between the expressions ‘lands’ and ‘sites’ in the context in which they have been used. Commercial sites read along with the other clauses dealing with sites clearly indicate that land occupied by structures is described as ‘site’. As stated above, the other clauses in Section 81 dealing with sites are house sites, temples, churches and mosques and buildings. As such, the expression ‘commercial site’ cannot take into its fold vacant lands, including lands used for the purpose of quarrying. It has a restrictive meaning in comparison to the other categories of ‘land’ in Section 81. Therefore, quarry cannot fit into the terms ‘commercial site’. The Appellant contended that digging the land for extracting stones is for a commercial purpose of making profit and hence quarry is a commercial site. This Court does not agree. A commercial site is a land on which there is a structure being utilized for an industrial or commercial purpose. Extension of the words ‘commercial site’ to quarries would result in defeating the purpose of the Act. [Para 15] [940-C-F]
4. This Court upheld the view of the majority of the full Bench of the High Court that exemption of quarries by the Government under Section 81 (3) would not arise if quarries are covered by Section 81 (1) (q) of the Act. In other words, if quarries are commercial sites, the need for their exemption in public interest does not arise. Section 81(3) of the Act empowers the Government to exempt lands for commercial purposes in public interest. The overriding power conferred on the Government to exempt lands from the applicability of the Act cannot be utilized for the purpose of interpretation of Section 81 (1) (q) which exempts commercial sites from the purview of the Act. Section
81 (1) (k) exempts unused lands of industrial or commercial undertakings at the time of commencement of the Act. The provision presupposes that an industrial or commercial undertaking was existing on the date of the commencement of the Act and there was some land set apart for the use of the undertaking in future. The said land is exempted only if the land is used for the industrial or commercial purposes of the undertaking within the time to be fixed by the authority. If the land is not used for the purpose for which it was set apart, the exemption ceases to operate. It is clear from the above that Section 81(1) (k) deals with a completely different type of land belonging to an industrial or commercial undertaking set apart for use of the said undertaking. Therefore, this Court is not in agreement with the support sought by the dissenting Judge from Section 81 (1) (k) to interpret the expression ‘commercial site’ in Section 81 (1) (q). [Para 17] [941-A-D]
Regional Executive, Kerala Fishermen’ Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food (1995) 4 SCC 34 ; Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corporation (2009) 9 SCC 61; Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (2008)
9 SCC 527 : [2008] 7 SCR 673 ; Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corpn. (1985) 4 SCC
71 ; Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre (1986) 2 SCC 614 : [1986] 2 SCR
169 ; Rajasthan SEB v. Associated Stone Industries (2006) 6 SCC 141 – relied on.
State of Kerala v. K. A. Gangadharan (1977) 1 SCC
208 : [1977] 1 SCR 960 ; Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161 : [ 2015] 8 SCR 210 ; Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik (1984) 1 SCC 588 ; Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council [2008] HCA 48 – referred to.
K. Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala and Others. CRP No.1245/1975 ; State of Kerala v. Mohammedali Haji (1996) 1 KLT 584(DB) ; One Earth One Life & Ors. v. State of Kerala WP (C) No. 28496 of 2016 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.