Ext.P7 proceedings of the third respondent and Exts.P15, P17 and P18 letters issued by respondents 4, 5 and 6 are under challenge in this petition. 2. The petitioner company holds properties in the States of Kerala and Tamilnadu which are rubber and tea plantations.
3. The petitioner alleges that most of the properties were acquired by the petitioner or its predecessors in 1800s and early 1900s with freehold rights purchased from the Government/private parties or with leasehold rights either in perpetuity or for long periods from the Government/private parties. The petitioner company alleges that it is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said properties all along by remitting all the statutory dues to the Government. The petitioner further alleges that it is a cultivating tenant in respect of those properties obtained on long term lease from private jenmies. Previously, the first respondent filed O.P.No.3508/ 2011 under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings relating to the properties held by the petitioner before the Taluk Land Board, Vythiri in TLB (SW) No.37/81). The same was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. There were two other writ petitions styled as public interest litigation, viz. WPC No.14251/2012 and WPC No.213/2013 to direct the Government to resume the lands held by the petitioner invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KLC Act' for short). Those petitions were also disposed of by Ext.P2 without expressing anything on merits and leaving it open to the competent authority under the KLC Act to decide to initiate action strictly in accordance with law.
4. The present grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 order was issued by the first respondent appointing the third respondent as Special Officer to exercise the powers conferred on the Collector under the KLC Act to resume the Government lands in the unauthorised possession of the petitioner. This, according to the petitioner, is on the wrong assumption that Ext.P2 judgment mandates resumption of land in the possession of the petitioner. Based on Exts.P3, P4 and P5, the third respondent issued Ext.P6 notice to inspect the lands held by the petitioner in Kollam District on 5.10.2013. Even before the inspection, the third respondent by Ext.P7, directed the revenue and forest officials not to permit felling of trees, issue of possession certificates or permit transfer of lands in respect of the petitioner's land or permit induction of strangers without written permission of the third respondent. The petitioner would further allege that based on Ext.P7 proceedings, the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents through Exts.P15, P17 and P18 letters have been declined permission to the petitioner to fell rubber trees, though this Court had permitted the petitioner to fell and remove the rubber trees from its estates on payment of seigniorage by Exts.P9 to P13 interim orders. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
5. The respondent State has filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that the third respondent is competent to pass Ext.P7 to avoid conflicting orders and to preserve the properties.
6. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader.
7. The main argument advanced by the learned senior counsel is that in order to get the jurisdiction, to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the KLC Act, the third respondent must first establish the jurisdictional fact viz. that the land in question is a Government land. It was pointed out that questions of title or disputes thereof can be decided only by a competent civil court. According to the learned senior counsel, the first respondent cannot decide disputes on the title unilaterally and evict any person based on such unilateral decisions, that too the petitioner, who, admittedly, is in possession and enjoyment of its land for almost a century. It was argued that the jurisdictional facts not having been established even in the notice issued by the third respondent, it is apparent that the third respondent does not have the jurisdiction to continue further with the proceedings under the KLC Act against the petitioner company.
8. According to the learned senior counsel, the action initiated by the third respondent is obviously based on predetermined findings and it is only to harass the petitioner which has been doing business in Kerala for almost a century and which has been providing direct employment to around 13000 people (mostly women) in rural Kerala thereby attaining the status of largest employer in the State. Therefore, it was argued that the entire proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 proceedings and Exts.P15, P17 and P18 letters ought to be declared as without jurisdiction and hence, illegal.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader, per contra, would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings issued by the respondent during the course of quasi judicial function under the provisions of the KLC Act. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the entire claim of the writ petition is based on a fraudulent claim over the huge extent of Government lands grabbed to the prejudice of the landless poor of the State using concocted and forged documents of title. I am not inclined to go into the question of the rival claims regarding title to the properties in dispute at this juncture.
10. A Division Bench of this Court, of which I was party, disposed of two writ petitions filed by persons claiming to be public interest litigations as WPC No.14251/2012 and WPC No.213/2013 with the following observations:
"Having perused the quality of the pleadings in WPC No.213/2013 and looking at the sanction order issued by the Company Court on the application approving the scheme of merge; particularly, the conditions imposed thereby, we are not of the view that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 needs to be extended to any matter touching the activities of Harrisons Malayalam Limited, since those are matters that could gain attention, if need be, in other jurisdictions, in accordance with law.
"For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are ordered without expressing anything on merits, directing that if the competent authority or authorities in the State administration as are authorised in terms of the provisions of the LC Act, decide to initiate action against any of the properties in the possession of Harrisons Malayalam Limited or any of its transferees or persons in occupation, they made do so strictly in accordance with law. If such authority concludes that action has to be so taken let steps be initiated in that regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Let proceedings follow thereupon, after hearing all parties entitled to be heard in that regard".
11. Evidently and admittedly too, the Special Officer was appointed as per Section 15 of the KLC Act based on the aforesaid direction.
12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a judgment of this Court disposing of WPC No.4877/2014, 7516/2014, 13037/2014 and 17351/2014 to canvass the proposition that Ext.P7 is illegal as the Special Officer has proceeded with without going into the jurisdictional issue. In the said judgment, a direction was given to the Special Officer to decide on the preliminary objections raised on the jurisdiction in the light of the discussions therein, within two months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in those writ petitions. Eviction was stayed still a final decision was taken in the matter.
13. There cannot be any quarrel against the proposition that before proceeding with the matter, the jurisdictional issue under the Land Conservancy Act has to be decided first. Here, the question is whether Ext.P7 order passed by the Special Officer has to be quashed on that count.
14. Admittedly, the petitioner company is in possession of the disputed property. The Special Officer has been appointed under Section 15 of the KLC Act to exercise the powers of the collector conferred under the said Act. This was on the basis of the directions of the Division Bench referred to above.
15. The argument advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader is that Ext.P7 was necessitated to prevent commission of waste as well as to maintain uniformity in action.
The entire proceedings initiated as per the direction of the Division Bench could be an exercise in futility, if contradictory orders are issued by different authorities concerned; so submitted the learned Special Government Pleader.
16. It is crucial to note that the Special Officer (third respondent) has not interdicted any action or operations in toto. On the other hand, the Special Officer has only directed the concerned officials to obtain written permission of the Special Officer for such actions including granting of permission. The petitioner company need not get prejudiced by Ext.P7. Section 12 notices were issued by the Special Officer. It is pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner has filed objections to the said notices. Therefore, having acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Special Officer, the petitioner is disabled from questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Officer.
17. The main grievance of the petitioner is that it is prevented from cutting trees from their property in possession.
18. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.10.2012 on I.A.No.11816 of 2012 in O.P. (C) No.3508/2011 permitted the petitioner to cut the trees directing them to deposit bank guarantee for Rupees 18 crores and furnish the details of trees to be cut under the strict supervision of the forest officials. When this writ petition came up for consideration along with the other writ petitions before the Division Bench of which I was party, an order was passed on 27th November 2012 as under:
"Taking the aforesaid submission and in the best interest of all concerned, in particular, State revenue, it is ordered that if the bank gurantee is not renewed and made available to this Court by presenting it before the Registrar General on or before 25.2.2013, the bank guarantee now produced shall be immediately invoked and funds appropriated in favour of the State. The renewal thereafter shall be for a period of one year and such bank guarantee shall be renewed from time to time so long as the issue subsists. Every renewed bank guarantee shall be made available before the Registrar General five days before the due date of expiry of the then binding bank guarantee. In failure to do so, the bank guarantee concerned would be invoked promptly. This order will govern parties, unless otherwise ordered."
19. Later, by judgment dated 9.11.2013 O.P.No.358/2011 was disposed of by the Division Bench as under:
"If the State Government has the clear assertion that the provisions of FERA are violated as regards the title to the properties in the possession of the respondent company or its assignees, intruders etc., the provisions to be invoked and the jurisdictions which it may have to invoke, have to be appropriately addressed and such questions cannot be taken to be put up, for a short in one go, under the cover of Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution. If questions of public policy and public interest are involved, the bare minimum is that appropriate action in accordance with the Rule of law has to follow. There cannot be any short cut by invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or the very limited constitutional jurisdiction under Article 228 of the Constitution, to decide on substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution".
20. The writ petition happened to be dismissed and the interim orders passed were consequently discharged on account of the technical ground that the writ petition was not maintainable under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India.
21. It is crucial to note that the right of the petitioner to cut the trees without any conditions was not recognised or established in any of the judgment or orders passed by this Court at any point of time. As Ext. P7 order was passed by the Special Officer as an interim measure, to avoid loss to the Government on account of inconsistent orders by various authorities, this Court is of the definite view that the same would not cause any serious prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the scope of interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is little.
In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09-09-2013 IN OP (C) No. 3508/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT PUBLISHED IN 2013 (4) KLT 584.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 28-02-2013 IN WPC NOS 14251 OF 2012 & 213 OF 2013 IN 2013 (2) KLT 44.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE ON 06-03-2013 OBTAINEDBY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO 161/2013/RD DATED 25-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE SENT BY THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (REVENUE) TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 10-09-2013 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23-09-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27-09-2013 ISSUED BY THE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THIS HON'BLE COURT'S JUDGMENT DATED 09-08-2012 IN WPC NO 18563 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11-10-2007 IN W. A NO 2400 OF 2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11-10-2007 IN W. A NO 2400 OF 2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15-02-2008 IN I.A NO 2296 OF 2008 IN WPC NO 35389 OF 2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 07-11-2008 IN WPC NO 32203 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 06-11-2008 IN WPC NO 32655 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08-10-2013 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-10-2013 ISSUED BY PETITIONER'S MOOPLY ESTATE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11-10-2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITOONER'S MOOPLY ESTATE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DEATED 23-10-2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO GLR-HML (LR)/4/2013 (1) DATED 18-10-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI NEWS PAPER DTD. 16.10.2001.
ANNE. R2A TRUE COPY OF VIGILANCE REPORT NO.V.E.I./ 13/SIU-II DATED 25.9.2013.
ANNEX. R2B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DTD.
13.11.2013 IN B.A. 7614/2013 FILED BY C. VINAYRAGHAVAN AND OTHERS.
EXT. R2 (C) TURE COPY OF FORM 'B' NOTICE NO.GLR (LR) 4/2013 (1) DTD.18.1.2014.
EXT. R2 (D) TRUE COPY OF FORM 'B' NOTICE NO.GLR- (LR)/4/2013 DATED 6.2.2014.
EXT. R2 (E) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.T-1/36/KC 20/2013 (AZ) 36 DATED 2.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, COCHIN ZONE.
EXT. R2 (F) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.2542/E2/2013/VIG.DTD.
2.5.2014 OF VIGILANCE (E) DEPARTMENT.
EXT. R2 (G) TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY REPORT NO.VE. 5/2014/ SIU II DATED 1.10.2014 OF VIGILANCE OFFICER.
EXT. R2 (H) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.GLR-HML (LR) 2/2013 DATED 31.3.2014 OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER.
EXT. R2 (1) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 15.10.2014 IN WPC NO.13037/2014.
EXT.R2 (J) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.20.10.2014 IN CRL.M.C.NO.6447/2013.
EXT. R2 (K) TRUE COPY OF FORM 'B' NOTICE NO.GLR (LR)/4/2013 (1) DATED 18.1.2014.
EXT.R2 (L) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 'B' NOTICE NO.GLR (LR)/4/2013 DTD.6.2.2014.
EXT.R2 (M) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.25.4.2014 OF THE WRIT PETITIONER.
EXT. R2 (N) TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION IN WPC No.28115/2006 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
CSS/ TRUE COPY P.S. to judge