Chettiam Veettil Ammad And Anr vs Taluk Land Board And Ors on 2 May, 1979
2. In the statement filed in Form 1, it was nowhere
mentioned that there was any Cardamom plantation. If there
is Cardamom cultivation, it has to come within the meaning
of the word 'plantation' and it is not required to refer to
the inclusive definition in clause (c) to apply. When the
matter was taken up second time by the Tluk Land Board, no
correction in the original return was sought but only an
affidavit was filed. There was then local inspection and
second order of Taluk Land Board, was by majority with the
Chairman dissenting. Lot could be said on the conduct of the
Taluk Land Board making local inspection without there being
any written application and then surveying the whole of the
area within a couple of hours on the same day. Reference was
made to the evidence and the nature of proceedings earlier
held by the Taluk Land Board, Case of the appellant that
Cardamom plantation was before 1.4.1964 was incorrect.
Letter of the appellant dated 18.10.1974 rather shows that
cultivation of Cardamom was after 1.4.1964. In the affidavit
dated 31.5.1976 of the appellant, it was stated that main
plantation was tea. Statement of the General Manager of the
appellant recorded by Taluk Land Board did not mention any
Cardamom plantation. Then again in the additional affidavit
dated 22.6.1976 of the appellant, there is no mention of any
Cardamom cultivation. When revision was filed before the
High Court against the order of the Taluk Land Board, again
there was no mention of any cultivation of Cardamom. It was
not technically possible for the Cardamom Board to conclude
that Cardamom plantation existed prior to 1964 and the
report was based on local inspection and queries and without
any scientific basis.