JUDGMENT
S. Sankarasubban, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur in A.A, No. 6/90. Petitioners are the owners of 2 scores and 8 cents of agricultural land comprised in R.S. No. 624/1 A, R.S. 622/5A, R.S. 622/1, R.S. 603/2B and R.S. 602/5 of Beypur Village of Kasaragod Taluk. Respondents 1 to 12 are the tenants of the petitioners. The petitioners are small holders and hence application was filed for resumption of the holding before the Land Tribunal, Kannur and the same was registered as O.A. No. 56/71. Finally, this Court confirmed the order of resumption of one half of the holding in favour of the revision petitioners as per order in C.R.P. No. 1672/84 dated 11-2-1987. But inspite of the order passed by this Court, till now the petitioners have not been given possession of the land allowed to be resumed. The petitioners filed application No. A31/88 for arrears of rent due on 13-4-1985, 13-4-1986 and 13-4-1987 before the Land Tribunal, Kannur. The Land Tribunal allowed the claim limiting however the claim for rent to the fair rent payable calculated at 75% of the contract rent. The Land Tribunal by order dated 25-8-1989 directed the respondents to pay the revision petitioners a sum of Rs. 16,455.60 within six months with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. Against the above order, respondents 1 to 9 preferred appeal before the Appellate as A.A. No. 6/90. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in part limiting the claim of the revision petitioners to one half of the rent payable even at the rate of fair rent calculated by the Land Tribu
nal and further observing that even the one half is payable to the revision petitioners only till the date of disposal of C.R.P. No. 1672/84.
3. As already stated, C.R.P. No. 1672/84 was disposed of on 11-2-1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri V. Sivaswamy contended that till the resumption application was disposed of and possession of the resumed property was given to the landlords, the holding does not vest to the Government. Even though the application by the petitioners was only for resumption of one half of the entire holding, the other half will vest only after the resumption is complete. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents Smt. Sumathi Dandapani contended that the application for resumption was only filed for one half of the holding and the other half of the holding will vest on the date of notification by the Government. The second half will vest depending upon the order passed. Further, it was continued that vesting is complete when once the resumption orders are passed and one need not wait for delivery of possession. Learned counsel supported the order of the Appellate Authority. I am told that there is no reported decision on this question. Hence, I am guided by the Act and the Rules.
4. So far as vesting is concerned, Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is the relevant Section. Under Section 72(1), the right, title and interest of the land owners in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants shall subject to the provisions of this Section vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. There is a proviso to Section 72(1) which says that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a holding or part of a holding in respect of which an application for resumption under the provisions of this Act is pending on such date before any Court or tribunal or in appeal or revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the proviso and submitted that the vesting does not take place on the notified date regarding holdings for which application for resumption is pending. Sub-section (2) of Section 62 is also important. It says that when an application for resumption either in part or in full has become final, the right, title and interest of the landowner and intermediaries, if any, of the holding or part of the holding, as the case may be in, respect of which resumption has not been allowed shall, with effect from the date
on which the application for resumption has been finally rejected, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Of course, the period of resumption is extended in the case of persons employed in the Armed Forces. The other relevant Sections are Sections 16, 16A, 17 and 18. Before we go into the question regarding vesting in the case of holding for which an application for resumption is pending, let us consider the question on the basis of statutory provisions.
5. In this context, I wish to refer to the definition of Section 2(17) which deals with ‘holding’. It reads as follows :
“holding” means a parcel or parcels of land held under a single transaction by a tenant from a landlord and shall include any portion of holding as above defined which the landlord and the tenant have agreed or are bound to treat as a separate holding.”
The argument of the respondents appears to be, in a case for resumption under Section 17 only one half of the land can be resumed. The other half will not be resumed. Hence, the contention is that in the case of an application for resumption, vesting takes place with regard to the other half portion of the property. But before we proceed, it is to be noticed that ‘holding’ is defined as a parcel or parcels of land held under a single transaction. Merely because an application for resumption is filed for one half that does not mean that the holding is split up and merely because the words ‘part of holding’ are used in Section 72, it cannot give rise to the impression that one half of the property vests in the Government even at the time when the application for resumption was pending.
6. As already stated, there is no dispute that the respondents were holding the entire land under tenancy. It was from that holding that the petitioners wanted to resume certain properties. Merely because the application for resumption of one half was filed it does not mean that the other half immediately will vest with the State. At the time of the application, there is no division in the holding. Holding is a whole one. Hence, I don’t find any reasonableness in the order of the Appellate Authority. As I have stated, this is under a misapprehension. If we examine the provisions regarding resumption, it will be clear that what is taken into account is the parcel of land under one transaction. Here, there is no case that the two
acres and odd are part of larger holding. It is from that holding that the petitioners wanted to give some properties for the purpose of construction of the building. The respondents’ contention that one behalf of the property will vest earlier is not correct. If we examine the provisions of resumption from Section 17 onwards, it can be seen that it is only after the final order that one will be able to know that which portion is allotted to be resumed. It is also correct to say that resumption will complete only after possession is given back to the possession. In this case, it has not become complete, because the tenants have not surrendered the land to the petitioners.
7. Hence, according to me, the respondents are liable to pay arrears of rent for the entire holding. Of course, they need pay only 75% of the fair rent. That was ordered by the Tribunal. The view of the Appellate Authority that the petitioners are entitled to fair rent only up to the date of disposal of the C.R.P. is also not correct, because if we examine the rule, resumption becomes complete when possession is given to the landlords. The possession is not given to the landlords so far. Hence, they are liable to pay rent for the entire holding. In this context, it is relevant to note Section 72(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act also which says that vesting takes place, if resumption application is dismissed. Of course here it can be said that the dismissal takes place only after possession is given to the landlords.
8. In the above view of the matter, I set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restore the order of the Land Tribunal. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.