State Can’t Act Like Robinhood: Kerala HC Sets Aside Land Conservancy Act Proceedings Against Harrisons Malayalam [Read Judgment]

The Welfare State exists for the downtrodden and the marginalised, but cannot act like Robin Hood; which would be a negation of the democratic principles and blatant flouting of rule of law, the Bench said.The Government if given a carte-blanche to negative such ownership and possession, at one go, by an officer authorised to evict unauthorized possession of lands; then it would be an arbitrary exercise of power violating all principles of rule of law, the Court held.In a huge blow for the Kerala Government, the High Court of Kerala has set aside eviction proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy (KLC) Act initiated by the state against Harrisons Malayalam Limited and its assignees, through a special officer appointed for the purpose, holding that it is without jurisdiction.Setting aside the eviction proceedings, a division bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Ashok Menon observed that since there is a bona fide dispute on title raised who have also been continuing in possession of the lands, paying the taxes and duties to government for such ownership and possession, and therefore the special officer authorised under the KLC Act cannot adjudicate on the title and then carry out eviction.The ChallengeHarrisons Malayalam Limited and its assignees had approached the high court challenging proceedings for eviction by state. According to them, proceedings initiated by the state, especially the one under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, is without jurisdiction, high handed and in violation of their right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. They had assailed orders of the special officer that had decided the question on jurisdiction, of encroachment and un-authorised occupation on government land and consequential notice directing vacation of unauthorised occupation of land.Issues like allegation of violation of the FERA, operation of Independence Act, interpretation of the KLR Act, the Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, the manipulations under the Puduval Rules and broad accusations of fraud, forgery and collusion, was highlighted on behalf of the state defending the proceedings under KLC Act.The ‘Essential Question’The issue before the bench was essentially this: “An Indian Company to which was amalgamated a foreign Company, whether could hold and enjoy the lands that devolved on them by virtue of the amalgamation; when the foreign Company could not have continued holding such lands after India got independence?”The JudgmentThe judgment, authored by Justice K Vinod Chandran runs to 191 pages and it elaborately discusses almost every issue raised by either sides. The observations made by the court on important issues are reproduced below.On Special Officer Deciding Title of LandThe Court made following observations with regard to special officer deciding the title of the land in possession of the petitioner company: Title cannot be adjudicated under the KLC Act, intended only at the eviction of unauthorised occupation. Title, to establish it or to controvert it, has to be adjudicated before a Civil Court. The government if given a carte-blanche to negate such ownership and possession, at one go, by an officer authorised to evict unauthorized possession of lands; then it would be an arbitrary exercise of power violating all principles of rule of law. The various orders and certificates issued by courts, land tribunals and taluk land boards cannot be nullified by the SO exercising jurisdiction under the KLC Act. Nor can the SO declare them to be fraudulent, forged or obtained by collusion. If the State has a contention that the orders and certificates issued are fraudulent or obtained by collusion, necessarily proceedings would have to be initiated to set aside the same. An officer authorised to evict unauthorised possession of government or puramboke lands cannot decide title on allegations of fraud, by himself, nullifying the orders and certificates issued under a statute and annulling decisions of civil courts; binding on the State too who was a party to the lis. Fraud will have to be pleaded and established in a Court of law and a statutory authority cannot find it to avoid its binding nature. Title, has to be found after adducing evidence in a properly initiated civil proceeding, if the state ventures so, to institute. There is no cause for the petitioners to approach the civil court to establish title under Section 20 of the KLC, Act; the proceedings under the Act having been set aside by us.On Alternate remedyThe court also rejected the contention of the state that the petitioners have alternate remedy by observing as follows: It is the Land Revenue Commissioner, the appellate authority, who made the proposal, as to the proceedings to be initiated under the KLC Act and the officer to be appointed. It is also crystal clear that the intention of the Government, the revisional authority, in appointing the SO to be the Collector, the authority under the KLC Act, revealed from the...

State Can’t Act Like Robinhood: Kerala HC Sets Aside Land Conservancy Act Proceedings Against Harrisons Malayalam [Read Judgment]

Ashok K.M

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

State Can’t Act Like Robinhood: Kerala HC Sets Aside Land Conservancy Act Proceedings Against Harrisons Malayalam [Read Judgment]

Ashok K.M

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers