Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs M/S.Amalgamated Tea Estate on 2 March, 1985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
CRP.No. 403 of 2009
------------------------------
TLB (SR) 503/MKM/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, MUKUNDAPURAM
...........................................
REVISION PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA R. BHAT
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. M/S.AMALGAMATED TEA ESTATE,
MALAKKAPARA, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. M/S TATA TEA LTD.,
MALAKKAPARA, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
SRI.BINU MATHEW
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
DCS
CRP.No. 403 of 2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE HEAD
MINISTERIAL OFFICER OF TLB MUKUNDAPURAM IN O.S.
NO. 492 OF 1981 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA DATED 02.03.1985
ANNEXURE P1(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND REVENUE
COMMISSIONER NO. LRC.2-5424/11 DATED 11.11.2013
ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 824/77
ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY S.K. MEHRA IN FAVOUR OF P.
SOMASUNDARAM PILLAI ON BEHALF OF THE
AMALGAMATED TEA ESTATE COMPANY REGISTERED AS
DOC. NO. 1977 DATED 05.04.1977
ANNEXURE III : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY S.PURI IN FAVOUR OF P.
SOMASUNDARAM PILLAI ON BEHALF OF THE
AMALGAMATED TEA ESTATE COMPANY REGISTERED AS
DOC. NO. 1977 DATED 05.04.1977
ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE PURCHASER (S.PURI) IN RESPECT OF
THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY THE TATA
FINLAY LIMITED.
ANNEXURE V: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE PURCHASER (S.K. MEHERA) BY THE
TATA FINLAY LIMITED.
ANNEXURE VI: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THUMP IMPRESSION
REGISTER
ANNEXURE I
(ARGUMENT NOTE):COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE IN W.P.(C). NO. 14242/2010
ALONG WITH THE SYNOPSIS OF DATES AND SYNOPSIS OF
DECISIONS
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :-
ANNEXURE R(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.10.2009 FROM THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, LAND BOARD, TRIVANDRUM
CRP.No. 403 of 2009
ANNEXURE R2(b): COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.11.2009 FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER & JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (LR
SECTION) OF COLLECTORATE, TRICHUR
ANNEXURE R2(c): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.10.2009 FROM THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND UNDER SECRETARY,
TRIVANDRUM
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
DCS
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P No. 403 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014
ORDER
The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Varkey Mathew [1998 (1) KLT 749 (SC)] held as follows:-
"We are therefore, of the considered view that the persons who succeeds to the estate of the deceased and is found to be in possession or holds land in excess under colour of title or by illegal means would also be liable to be proceeded with under S.85(7) in computation of the excess land owned or held by the deceased person." (emphasis supplied) Therefore the second respondent who is alleged to hold excess lands under an imperfect title by virtue of an assignment by the first respondent can also be proceeded against under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act').
2. The petitioner has a contention that no prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained before the first respondent (a foreign company) executed the sale deed in favour of the second respondent (Indian company). The sale is said to have been conducted in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1973. I need not delve into these aspects since the parties have not joined issues on this question before C.R.P. No. 403 of 2009 2 the Taluk Land Board. Interest of justice would be met by making it clear that the petitioner is free to initiate proceedings against the respondents under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act if there are good and valid grounds. I draw support from the following observations of the Division Bench in the judgment dated 28.02.2013 in W.P.(C). No. 14251/2012.
"9. One thing is certain: even if lands are covered by orders issued by the Land Board in a ceiling case, if the Government were to contend specifically that the lands are Government lands or are lands which the Government are entitled to reach at, through the process of the LC Act, it would be within the jurisdiction of the competent statutory authority to initiate action. This is because, title to property is not what is decided in the Land Board proceedings in a ceiling case as between the declarant and the State, though such issues may be germane while exemptions or identification of excess, are to be decided by the Land Board, as between the declarant and other parties appearing before the Land Board. If the Government have the case that the paramount title to the land rests with them, they would be at liberty to initiate action in accordance with law."
3. I now proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board under Section 103 of the Act. The order of remand in C.R.P. No. 580/1978 primarily directs the Taluk Land Board to consider the exemption as regards cleared forest, rocks and barren lands in terms of C.R.P. No. 403 of 2009 3 Section 2(44) of the Act. Whether the cleared forest (as on 01.04.1964) was necessary for the protection and efficient management of the cultivation is a germane question. The fact that the cleared forest has since been converted into a plantation is of no avail to claim exemption. There is no finding by the Taluk Land Board that the cleared forest was necessary for the protection and efficient management of the cultivation in the plantation before 01.04.1964. This aspect of the matter needs a deeper probe and elaborate consideration for which there has to be a remand.
4. May be rocks and barren lands are useless for the purpose of assignment on registry since it is interspersed within the boundaries of the plantation. But the question is whether those rocks and barren lands are necessary for the protection and efficient management of the cultivation in the plantation. There has been no application of mind by the Taluk Land Board in that respect and the matter needs a fresh look after obtaining necessary inputs. The cleared forest, rocks and barren lands could be exempted and treated as a plantation only if the conditions under Section 2(44)(c) of the Act are satisfied.
C.R.P. No. 403 of 2009 4
5. I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Taluk Land Board, Mukundapuram for a de-novo consideration on the above two aspects. The question of exemption of cleared forest, rocks and barren lands shall be reconsidered in terms of Section 2(44)(c) of the Act. The finding of the Taluk Land Board in all other aspects is hereby affirmed. The Taluk Land Board shall endeavour to pass fresh orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS