Judgment :- 1. These eleven writ petitions arise out of the same facts; and they seek the same kind of reliefs. The questions arising in these cases are also the same; and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. The petitioners in all these cases are the same; and they are the two co-owners of a coffee plantation, having an extent of 261-71 acres in R. S.454/ 4-A2 and other survey numbers in Tirunelli Amsom, North Wynad, Cannanore District. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in all these cases are also the same. They are the Land Tribunal, Tellicherry, the Assistant Collector, Tellicherry, and the State of Kerala respectively. The second respondent in these cases are different persons; and they are said to be mazdoors working in the plantation under the petitioners, and living in the coolie lines provided by the petitioners for the residence of the mazdoors. S.29 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for preparation of record of rights in respect of cultivating tenants. The cultivating tenant' is defined in S.2 (8) of the Act as a tenant, who is in actual possession of and is entitled to cultivate the land comprised in the holding. The word 'holding' is also defined in S.2(17) of the Act, meaning a parcel or parcels of land held under a single demise by a tenant from a landlord, and shall include any portion of a holding as above defined which the landlord and the tenant have agreed, or are bound under S.48 or otherwise, to treat as a separate holding. The word 'tenant' is also defined in the Act in S.2 (57); and it is not necessary to refer to that definition. S.29 of the Act reads as follows: "29. Preparation of record of rights: (1) Any cultivating tenant may, at any time within one year from the commencement of this Act, apply to the Land Tribunal for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of the holding. The Land Tribunal shall admit such application if it is prima facie satisfied that the application has been made bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Government may suo motu direct the Land Tribunal for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of any holding. The Land Tribunal shall admit such application if it is prima facie satisfied that the application has been made bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Government may suo motu direct the Land Tribunal for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of any holding. (3) Where an application for the preparation of a record of rights is admitted or when directed by the Government to prepare such record, the Land Tribunal shall direct the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the holding is situated to prepare a record of rights in respect of the holding. (4) The record of rights shall be prepared in such manner as may be prescribed, after giving an opportunity to the landlord and all other interested parsons to be heard. The record of rights shall contain (a) the description and extent of the holding; (b) the name and address of the owner; (c) the nature of the applicant's interest in the holding; (dj the name and address of the intermediaries in respect of the holding and the nature of the interest of each of such intermediaries; (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (5) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall, for the purpose of proceedings under the section, have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit;"and (d) issuing commission for the examination of witness or for local investigation. (6) The record of rights prepared under this section shall be admissible in evidence before any court or tribunal. (7) Where an application for the preparation of a record of rights in respect of a holding is admitted, no application under S.31 for determination of fair rent in respect of that holding shall be disposed of till the record of rights is prepared under this Section." By an order dated 7121964, the fourth respondent directed the first respondent to prepare record of rights in respect of the holdings of tribals in North Wynad; and pursuant to the said order, the first respondent directed the third respondent under S.29 (3) of the Act to take necessary action. R.14 to 17A of the Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are the Rules regarding the preparation of record of rights. The third respondent obtained applications from the second respondent in all these eleven cases in Form 4 prescribed under the Rules. He got a preliminary enquiry conducted in the matter by the Special Tahsildar, Mananthur, and published the requisite notice in Form 6 under R.16. He also issued notices in all the eleven applications to the first petitioner in Form 7. These notices have been marked as Ext. P.1 in each case. Some of them are dated 23rd April, 1966, while others are dated 19th March, 1966. Except for the difference in the name of the tenant and the extent of the land, all these notices are in the same terms. It is, therefore, sufficient to refer to the notice issued in one of these cases; and I shall refer to the one in O.P. No. 1504 of 1967. It reads as follows: "FORM No. 7 (Notice to individuals) (S. 29 & R.16) O.P. 811/66 Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tellicherry. Name of Tenant: Chelur Kuruman Bollu, S/o Martian, Tirunelly Village, Trissileri desom. NOTICE Take notice that as per orders of the Government and the direction of the Land Tribunal, Tellicherry, the enquiry regarding the preparation of records of rights in respect of the land specified in the schedule hereunto has been posted to 6 51966 at 11 a. m. at Taluk Office. Manantoddy. You are hereby directed to appear in person or by authorised agent at the hearing and put forth your claims and objections, if any, in this matter. If no such appearance is made, the matter shall be decided ex-parte. Table:#1 Dated this the 23rd day of April 1966. Sd/ R. D. O. Tellicherry." To: Applicant, J. Dewe Van Ingen, Besel Handi Mysore." I shall also state the extent of the land shown in the notices issued in the other cases. It is 11 cents in O.P. 1506;10 cents each in O.P. Nos. 1505 and 1514; 7 cents each in O.P. 1507,1508 and 1511; 5 cents in O.P. 1509, 8 cents in O.P. 1510, 13 cents in O.P. 1512, and 18 cents in O.P. 1515 of 1967. The first petitioner appeared before the third respondent and filed an objection, which is marked Ext. P2 in OP. 1504 of 1967. 1505 and 1514; 7 cents each in O.P. 1507,1508 and 1511; 5 cents in O.P. 1509, 8 cents in O.P. 1510, 13 cents in O.P. 1512, and 18 cents in O.P. 1515 of 1967. The first petitioner appeared before the third respondent and filed an objection, which is marked Ext. P2 in OP. 1504 of 1967. The same objection has been filed in all the other cases. Ext. P2 reads as follows: 'Before the RDO. Tellicherry OP. 811/66 Chelur Kuruman Bollu, S/o Mathan. J. Dowet & Joubert Van ingen. I am the co-owner of the Kartikulam and Alathur estate. The other co-owner is Mr. Joubert van Ingen, my brother. The Survey No. of my property is RS. 454/4A2. The area of the property comes to 261.71 acres. This property was originally a tea and orange estate and now we have converted it into a coffee estate. The petitioner was a worker at my estate. He being a coolie, a but was constructed by us with our own funds within our estate near the boundary. This was done only for the convenience of the coolies working at our estate. There are many such permanent and temporary coolies. They would not live in the lines specially built for them. Some of such workers have filed petitions like this before the Land Tribunal. Many have taken their gratuity and although they were asked to vacate they are still staying in the house. They have absolutely no right for the but or place. The area is within our estate. The revenue is paid by us. This is a dry developed area and is a plantation. Under the above circumstances it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Sd/- J. Van Ingen." 3. On 27-10-1966, the third respondent passed an order overruling the first petitioner's objection and directing the publication of the draft record of rights regarding the respective extent of lands mentioned in the applications of the eleven applicants, under R.17(4) of the Rules. A copy of the order with the draft record attached thereto is produced in all these case as Ext. P-3. They are identical in terms except in respect of the extent of the land, the name of the tenant and also the contract rent or michavaram. In some cases, the contract rent or michavaram is shown as Rs. A copy of the order with the draft record attached thereto is produced in all these case as Ext. P-3. They are identical in terms except in respect of the extent of the land, the name of the tenant and also the contract rent or michavaram. In some cases, the contract rent or michavaram is shown as Rs. 3/- per acre, while in other cases it is shown as Rs. 5/- per acre. The first petitioner again filed an objection to the draft record of rights in all these cases. The objection is in the same terms and alt of them are dated 13th January, 1967. They have been marked as Ext. P-4 in all the cases. Ext. P-4 in O.P. No. 1504 of 1967 reads as follows: "Before the Assistant Collector of Tellicherry OBJECTORS: Kartikolam & Alathur Estates, Kartikolam P. O. by partner J. Van Ingen. Statement of objections filed under R.17(5) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) R.1964 to draft record of rights prepared in O.P. 372/66, 810 and 811/66. 1. The draft record of rights has been made out in the above petitions in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the estates have not been registered under R.59 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules of 1964, The objector begs to submit that as per requirements of R.59, the objector has submitted a return furnishing all the particulars to the Land Board at Trivandrum. A copy of the return furnished is herewith submitted. 2. After the submission of the return to the Land Board, the Land Board directed the objector to submit Court Fee Stamp Rs. 2/. The memorandum issued by the Land Board is also enclosed. The requisite stamp was submitted to the Land Board by M/s Volkart Bros. of Tellicherry who were acting for the Objectors. A copy of the letter addressed to the Land Board by M/s Volkart Bros. is also submitted herewith. The objector therefore submits that he has complied with all the formalities prescribed under R.59 and since the Land Board has to take a decision in this behalf, it is submitted that it would not be correct to say that the objector has not registered the estates with the Land Board. 3. is also submitted herewith. The objector therefore submits that he has complied with all the formalities prescribed under R.59 and since the Land Board has to take a decision in this behalf, it is submitted that it would not be correct to say that the objector has not registered the estates with the Land Board. 3. The objector further begs to submit that the petitioners in the above petitions were employees engaged by the Objector for working the estates, and the objector had to provide living accommodation to the employees as per requirements of the Plantation Labour Act. The records which show the above averments were submitted at the time the draft record of rights was prepared. 4. The petitioners in the above petitions have, therefore, no right whatever in the lands which they are claiming. The objector, therefore, prays that the petitions be dismissed summarily and the record of rights made out in the name of the objector." Kartikolam, For Kartikolam & Alathur Estates January 30, 1967. Sd/- Partner (Objector)". 4. By an order, Ext. P-5 dated 16 21967 (which is wrongly put as 16 11967), the third respondent overruled the objection filed by the first petitioner in all the cases, and directed the final record of rights in Form 5 to be published under R.17 (4) of the Rules. Accordingly, the record of rights was published by the third respondent registering the eleven tenants in these cases as cultivating tenants of the land mentioned in the respective record. These Original Petitions have been filed to quash Ext. P-5 and restrain respondents 1 and 3 from effecting any change in the revenue records pursuant to Ext. P-5. The petitioners have also prayed for a declaration that R.16 and 17 of the Rules are ultra vires of the Constitution and to strike them down; but that relief has not been pressed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The main contentions urged by the learned counsel are the following: - 1. The lands, in respect of which record of rights was prepared in these cases, are comprised in and form part of a plantation, and, therefore, S.29 of the Act relating to preparation of records does not apply to the case; 2. 5. The main contentions urged by the learned counsel are the following: - 1. The lands, in respect of which record of rights was prepared in these cases, are comprised in and form part of a plantation, and, therefore, S.29 of the Act relating to preparation of records does not apply to the case; 2. The second respondent in any of these petitions is not a cultivating tenant as defined in the Act and that none of them has a holding in respect of land for which the record of rights was prepared; 3. The enquiry relating to the preparation of the record of rights was conducted by the Special Tahsildar. This is contrary to the statutory provisions in that respect, and it vitiates the whole procedure; 4. The petitioners were not given any reasonable opportunity to substantiate their objections; and 5. The procedure adopted by the third respondent was in violation of the Rules, and also the principles of natural justice. 6. I shall now consider the first contention. The lands in respect of which record of rights has been prepared in these cases, are comprised in and form part of a coffee plantation of the petitioners, having an extent of 261.71 acres. The first petitioner, to whom notice in form 7 was given, objected to the preparation of the record on this ground, as is evident from Ext. P2. The fact that these lands form part of a Coffee Plantation is not denied in Ext. P-3; but his objection was over-ruled on the ground that he did not produce any certificate to prove that the estate had been registered as a plantation area as required under the Act and the Rules to get exemption from preparing record of rights. This is an obvious confusion on the part of the third respondent; and it seems to have misled the first petitioner to think that it was necessary for getting the exemption that the land owner must have furnished the necessary particulars under R.59 of the Rules to the Land Board within the prescribed period. So in his objection, Ext. P-4, he stated that he had complied with all the formalities prescribed under R.59, and that it would not be correct to say that he had not registered the estate with the Land Board. But the third respondent seemed to have a predetermined mind. So in his objection, Ext. P-4, he stated that he had complied with all the formalities prescribed under R.59, and that it would not be correct to say that he had not registered the estate with the Land Board. But the third respondent seemed to have a predetermined mind. He repeated the same ground in his order, Ext. P-5, and over-ruled the first petitioner's objection, apparently under the impression that whatever may be its merits, he was under orders of the Government to prepare the record of rights. S.3 (1) (viii) of the Act reads as follows: "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to x x x x (viii) tenancies in respect of plantations exceeding thirty acres in extent: Provided that the provisions of this Chapter, other than S.53 to 72, shall apply to tenancies in respect of agricultural lands which are treated as plantations under sub-clause (c) of clause (44) of S.2." This section appears in Chapter II. R.29 also appears in the same Chapter. What R.59 of the Rules provides is that any person claiming exception from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act on the ground that any land owned or held by him is a plantation, shall, within the time prescribed therein, furnish to the Land Board a statement showing the particulars mentioned therein. Chapter III of the Act deals with restriction on ownership, possession of land in excess of the ceiling area etc. Therefore, the furnishing of particulars under R.59 has absolutely no relevancy to the question of exemption of a plantation from the operation of Chapter II of the Act. The fact that the lands in respect of which record of rights was prepared in these 11 cases form part of a coffee plantation is not disputed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government; and there is no other counter-affidavit in these cases. It is, therefore, obvious that S.29 of the Act has no application; and the whole action taken by the third respondent is without jurisdiction. It is very unfortunate that the third respondent refused to take note of this elementary fact, even though specific objection was taken before him on this ground, and he wasted a lot of public time, and put the first petitioner and others into unnecessary trouble by persisting in a proceeding which he had no jurisdiction to take. Ext. It is very unfortunate that the third respondent refused to take note of this elementary fact, even though specific objection was taken before him on this ground, and he wasted a lot of public time, and put the first petitioner and others into unnecessary trouble by persisting in a proceeding which he had no jurisdiction to take. Ext. P-5 is bad under law on this short ground. 7. The second contention may now be considered. The question whether the second respondent in these cases is a cultivating tenant and whether he ha; got a holding in respect of the land for which the record of rights was prepared is one of fact. If the finding of the third respondent on this question is based upon some materials, the correctness of that finding is not open for scrutiny in a writ petition, provided the said finding is preceded by a proper enquiry conducted in accordance with law, and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the question for consideration, is whether Ext. P-5 is supported by any materials. Ext. P-5 reads as follows: "Proceedings of the Sub Collector, Tellicherry Dt.16-1-1967 Sri. C. K. K. Panicker O.P.No. 811/66 Appellant. Chelur Kuruman Bollu Respondent. J. D. Van. Ingen, Alathur Estate. In pursuance of G. O. Ms. 255/64 dated 7121964 the Land Tribunal, Tellicherry, has directed the Assistant Collector, Tellicherry under R.29(3) of the K. L. R. Act 1963 (Act 1 of 64) for the preparation of Record of rights in respect of the holdings of tribes in North Wynad area. Accordingly the application in form 4 was obtained from Chelur Kuruman Bollu of Tirunelly Village, Trissileri Desom on 2 4 66 for preparation of record of rights in respect of holdings belonging to him in R. S. No. 454/4A2 of Trissileri Desom. Notices in Form 6 and 7 as provided in S.29 and R.16 of the Act have been properly published and served on interested parties. The application was sent for enquiry to the Special Tahsildar for preparation of record of rights, Manantoddy. His report shows that the applicant has right over an extent of 11 cents in R. S. No. 454/4A2 of Trissileri Desom The case was taken up for hearing on 6 5 66,20-5 66,15 6 66,19 8 66,16 9 66 and on 13 10 66. His report shows that the applicant has right over an extent of 11 cents in R. S. No. 454/4A2 of Trissileri Desom The case was taken up for hearing on 6 5 66,20-5 66,15 6 66,19 8 66,16 9 66 and on 13 10 66. The landowner appeared through the advocate and filed objections on the ground that the land involved in this case has been registered as a coffee estate by the Collector. But he did not produce any certificate to prove that this estate was registered as a plantation under R.59 of Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy R.1964. Accordingly on 2710 66 draft records of rights was prepared in Form No. 5 and published according to the Rules. The land owner has filed an objection before me on 30 11967. In the objection petition it is stated that an application for registration as plantation is pending with the Land Board and as such the Land should be treated as a plantation. Again it was contended that the houses were built as per requirement of the plantation Labour Act and the applicant is a labourer working in the Plantation. But on perusal of the statement filed by the objector there is nothing to prove that the applicant is not in possession of the land. Even if the connection of the objector that the houses were originally constructed by him to be accepted it is not denied that the applicant is in possession of 11 cents of land where he has effected improvement by cultivating plantain etc. The enquiry report by the Tahsildar also proves this. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for preparation of record of rights and I therefore order that final record of rights for 11 cents of land in form No. 5 attached to this proceedings shall be published under R.17 (4) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964. Sd/- Sub Collector, Tellicherry." The above order shows that it is based on the following facts: (i) The objector did not produce any certificate to prove that the estate was registered as a plantation under R.59 of the Rules. Sd/- Sub Collector, Tellicherry." The above order shows that it is based on the following facts: (i) The objector did not produce any certificate to prove that the estate was registered as a plantation under R.59 of the Rules. (ii) On a perusal of the statement of the objector there was nothing to prove that the applicant was not in possession of the land; (iii) it was not denied that the applicant was not in possession of the land and that he had effected improvements by cultivating plantain etc. and (iv) The enquiry report by the Tahsildar also proved the above things. The first ground stated, as already pointed out, is the result of a baseless misconception. The second and the third statements are contrary to the records. Exts. P-2 and P-4 clearly state that the applicants had no manner of rights in the lands, and that they formed part of the coffee plantation in the possession of the petitioners. In the light of this positive objection, it is a perversion of truth to say that it was not denied that the applicant was not in possession of the land and that he had effected improvements by cultivating plantain etc. The last ground relied on is the enquiry report by the Tahsildar. It is surprising that even in the face of the allegation that Ext. P5 is not based on any materials, the enquiry report by the Tahsildar is not produced in the case. The enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioners. Even a copy of that report was not given to them. S.29 of the Act requires the enquiry to be made by the third respondent, and not by any subordinate authority; in these cases there is no knowing what the enquiry report of the Tahsildar contains. It is therefore hardly a stable ground. Ext. P-5 is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of it; and there are also no materials to support the finding that the second respondent is a cultivating tenant of the land mentioned therein. 8. The remaining contentions can be considered together. The counter-affidavit states that preliminary enquiries for examining the correctness of the applications from the tenants were conducted by the Special Tahsildar, and that the record of rights was prepared on his recommendation and report. 8. The remaining contentions can be considered together. The counter-affidavit states that preliminary enquiries for examining the correctness of the applications from the tenants were conducted by the Special Tahsildar, and that the record of rights was prepared on his recommendation and report. R.17 requires that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall hold an enquiry into the application at the time and the date specified in the public notice referred to in R.16 and hear the persons appearing before him. Therefore, the enquiry has to be made by the third respondent, and not by any subordinate officer. The counter-affidavit asserts that enquiry was made by the third respondent also. But it is not one filed by the third respondent; and it does not disclose what enquiry he made or on what materials he acted. No records to show that any such enquiry was made were made available even for the scrutiny of this Court. It is for the third respondent to establish that the record of rights has been prepared by him after conducting an enquiry as required by the Act and the Rules. That has not been done. 9. It is admitted that the second petitioner is a co-owner of the plantation, and that no notice was given to him in any of the proceedings. The first petitioner stated in his objection to the draft record that the second petitioner is a co-owner of the property. So the third respondent had express notice of this fact. The second petitioner is as much interested in the matter as the first petitioner. He is one of the persons entitled to notice under S.29 (4) of the Act. R.16 (3) also demands that notice shall be issued individually to all persons interested in the holding. So the failure of the third respondent to give notice to the second petitioner is a violation of the aforesaid mandatory provisions. 10. R.16 (3) provides that the notice in Form 7 shall except in the case of the notice to the applicant be accompanied by a copy of the application from the tenant. Not only that this rule was violated by the third respondent; but he even refused to give a copy of the application to the first petitioner, in spite of a specific request made by him for a copy. Not only that this rule was violated by the third respondent; but he even refused to give a copy of the application to the first petitioner, in spite of a specific request made by him for a copy. The counter-affidavit states that a copy of the application was not given, as there was no necessity for granting it, since the facts and purposes stated in the application was conveyed to the first petitioner through the notice published in Form 6. The counter-affidavit also states that "the only purpose of the enquiry was to verify the correctness of the facts stated in the petition and to collect material information required for preparation of record of rights in respect of the holding". This is a total misconception of the scope of the enquiry. The relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules show that it is a quasi-judicial enquiry that is contemplated All persons interested in the holding are entitled to have notice, with copy of the application. The enquiry must be a public enquiry; and all who appear in response to the notice are entitled to be heard. The draft record is to be prepared after such an enquiry. Then the draft record has also to be published inviting objections, and a further enquiry has to be held by the Revenue Divisional Officer into the objections. After that he has to pass an order recording his reasons and findings in respect of the entries in the record (vide R.16 and 17). Sub-section (4) of S.29 requires that the record of rights shall be prepared after giving an opportunity to the landlord and all other interested persons to be heard; and Sub-section (5) confers on the Revenue Divisional Officer the powers of a civil court for summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, requiring the discovery and production of any document, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or for local investigation etc., for the purposes of the proceeding under the above section. Denial of a copy of the application to the landlord is denial of an opportunity to him to state his objections and establish the same. Virtually it is denial of a proper hearing. Denial of a copy of the application to the landlord is denial of an opportunity to him to state his objections and establish the same. Virtually it is denial of a proper hearing. Thus the proceedings have been conducted and the record of rights has been prepared by the third respondent in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules, a total misconception of the scope of his function and utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. 11. In the result, I allow all the Original Petitions, quash Ext. P-5, the record prepared in all these cases, and restrain respondents 1 and 3 from effecting any change in the revenue records pursuant to the preparation of the record of rights by the third respondent. Respondent No. 3 will pay the costs of the petitioners in all these cases. Counsel's fee in each case Rs. 100/.