Lands Allotted For Industrial Purpose Should Not Be Cancelled By Adopting Hyper-Technical Approach: Kerala High Court

Recently, the Kerala High Court observed that the lands allotted by the State Government in the industrial area are to promote industrial growth and a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted to cancel the allotment. The Court was referring to the Kerala Allotment of Government Land in Development Areas on Hire Purchase For Industrial Purpose Rules, 1969.The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu said that the focus should be on proper utilisation of the land allotted for industrial use. However, unutilised lands would defeat the purpose of industrial growth.“If, however, it can be reasonably shown that the land is being used for the purpose for which it is allotted and that industrial growth is being achieved, then the Department is not expected to hold an enquiry with a magnifying glass to somehow find some ways and means to cancel the allotment and shut down a running unit generating employment and contributing to the industrial growth. Such an approach would defeat the policy of allotment, as envisaged under the Rules of 1969.”To provide a brief background, the appellant was initially allotted land. Following this, he sought additional land, which was allotted. However, the respondent made complaints to various authorities against the appellant. He argued that he had filed for an allotment and instead, an additional land was allotted to the appellant.Consequently, a single-judge bench of the High Court set aside the allotment while directing the concerned department to consider allotment to the respondent. Further, if no land was available for allotment, then any unutilised land in the industrial area was ordered to be resumed. Finally, an order, directing resumption of 146 cents of land out of 381 cents allotted to the Appellant (in first allotment), was passed. The order was initially challenged before a single bench in a writ petition. Since the petition came to be dismissed, the present appeal was filed.At the outset, the Bench pointed out that the order did not indicate that there was no other land available for allotment. Taking a cue from this, the Court said that the department's approach was perverse as it misconstrued the Court's order.“A completely perverse approach has been adopted by the Department in misconstruing the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 33457 of 2009 dated 4 July 2012. This Court had found that the priority of Respondent No. 4 was breached even though he had applied earlier while allotting land to the Appellant, and an enquiry had to be made with respect to any other land being available and then allot the same after following priority. There was no direction to focus only on the case of the Appellant alone.”It also pointed out that, in the writ appeal, the Division Bench had clarified that there was no specific finding regarding the existence of unutilised land qua the Appellant. However, still, the department passed the above order.“The Division Bench clarified that the direction given by the learned Single Judge is to be considered as not following the priority principle, and the action, if any, by the Department against the Appellant would be independent thereof. Therefore, the contention of the Department that the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 4 July 2012 had directed that the land of the Appellant is to be resumed is entirely incorrect…”Regarding the utilisation of the land, the Court noted that as per the appellant a treatment plant, ash storage unit, a rice mill, and a portion of the wheat unit were established and an erection of the machinery was remaining. Thus, no portion of the land is lying unutilised. However, the respondent argued that the allotment was made for the purpose of manufacturing rice and rice bran and not for any other purpose. Rejecting this argument of the respondent, the Court said:“We find no merit in the contentions of the Department and Respondent No.4. In furtherance of focusing on the Appellant alone without equity of other surplus lands, the Department proceeded to take a hyper-technical approach in the matter to somehow cancel the allotment without considering various other aspects.”In view of this, the Court concluded that the department's order was based on a flawed interpretation. Observing that the order would not only seriously affect the employment in this fully functional unit but would also be against the allotment's policy, the Court quashed the order and allowed the present appeal.Counsel for Appellants: Advocates Praveen K. Joy, T.A.Joy, E.S.Saneej, M.P.Unnikrishnan, N.Abhilash, Deepu Rajagopal, Albin Varghese, Abisha.E.R, Fathima Shalu S.Counsel for Respondents: Senior Government Pleader V Tekchand, Senior Advocate T.Krishnanunni, Advocates T.Sivadasan, Meena A., Vinod RavindranathCase Name: M/S. MOTHERS AGRO FOODS (P) LTD. V. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE And Others., WA NO. 361 OF 2015Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 52Click Here To Read/Download Order

Lands Allotted For Industrial Purpose Should Not Be Cancelled By Adopting Hyper-Technical Approach: Kerala High Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Lands Allotted For Industrial Purpose Should Not Be Cancelled By Adopting Hyper-Technical Approach: Kerala High Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers