The main legal point established in the judgment is that the orders under R.113(1)(b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, were administrative in nature and that rules of natural justice did not apply to them.

Headnote:
DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES - Cultivation of Paddy - R.113(1)(b) and (2) - The court discussed the validity of the orders passed under R.113(1)(b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, regarding the cultivation of paddy in certain reclaimed paddy lands in the Vembanad lake in Kuttanad in the Alleppey District. The court held that the orders were administrative and that rules of natural justice did not apply to them. The court also found that there was no mala fide intention behind the orders and that they were fair and just. The court dismissed the petitions with costs, allowing the petitioners to take the yield from the trees and remove specified articles from the land.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved petitions filed under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging orders passed by the State of Kerala under R.113(1)(b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules of 1971 regarding the cultivation of paddy in certain reclaimed paddy lands in the Vembanad lake in Kuttanad in the Alleppey District. The main petition was O. P. No. 4194 of 1972.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders under R.113(1)(b) and (2) were administrative in nature and that rules of natural justice did not apply to them. The court also found that there was no mala fide intention behind the orders and that they were fair and just. The court dismissed the petitions with costs, allowing the petitioners to take the yield from the trees and remove specified articles from the land.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the orders passed under R.113(1)(b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, and the applicability of rules of natural justice to these orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the orders under R.113(1)(b) and (2) were administrative in nature and that rules of natural justice did not apply to them. The court also found that there was no mala fide intention behind the orders and that they were fair and just.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions with costs, allowing the petitioners to take the yield from the trees and remove specified articles from the land.

Judgment :-

1. What is assailed in these petitions filed under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution is certain orders passed by the first respondent, the State of Kerala, under R.113 (1) (b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules of 1971, for short, the 1971 Rules, regarding the cultivation of paddy in certain reclaimed paddy lands in the Vembanad lake in Kuttanad in the Alleppey District. The main petition is O. P. No. 4194 of 1972. Counter and reply affidavits have been filed only in that original petition. The Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions agreed in submitting when these petitions were beard that as the fate of the other petitions depended upon that in O P. No. 4194 of 1972 it would be sufficient if they were disposed of according to the decision in O P. No. 4194 of 1972. In other words they said that if O. P. No 4194 of 1972 was allowed, the other petitions may be allowed and if it was dismissed, the other petitions also may be dismissed.

2. The land involved in O. P. No. 4194 of 1972 is in "T" block. It is surrounded on all sides by water. Agricultural operations in Kuttanad are peculiar. Immediately after the harvest which usually takes place in January the lands are ploughed. When ploughing takes place the internal bunds are also laid. Thereafter water is let into the lands. For several months thereafter the lands would be under water. After repair of the outer bunds the lands are de-watered. Thereafter seeds are sown.

3. Early this year under the auspices of the Marxist Communist Party a "Land Grab Agitation" was started in the State. Campaigns for forcibly taking lands held by land-holders in excess of the ceiling area fixed in the Land Reforms Act were organised by the Party. Threats were issued to cultivators that they would not be allowed to carry on agricultural operations peacefully.

In a statement issued by Sri. A. K. Gopalan, a leader of the Marxist Communist Party, and published in the newspaper, Mathrubhoomi, dated August 1, 1972, Ext. P1, he said that even though members of his party were not against landholders raising cultivations in such excess lands, they would not allow the landholders to take the yield from the lands.

4. Disputes arose between the agriculturists and agricultural labourers of the area regarding the wages to be paid to the labourers at the various stages of paddy cultivation for the agricultural season. These disputes started by June 1972. Kuttanad Agriculturists' Association which represents almost all the cultivators in Kuttanad area took a decision that if the dispute regarding the wages to be paid to the labourers during the agricultural season, 1972-73, was not settled and peaceful cultivation was assured the agriculturists in Kuttanad would not cultivate the lands and would allow the lands to lie fallow during the 1972-73 season. On August 17,1972 the Minister in charge of Agriculture issued a statement published in the newspaper, Hindu, dated August 18,1972, Ext. P4, that if the cultivators did not give up their 'no cultivation programme', the Government would invoke the 1971 rules and take over the uncultivated lands in Kuttanad.

5. On August 21,1972 the Government notified the order, Ext. P5, under R.113(1)(b). It reads thus:

"S. R. O. No- 432/72 Whereas the Government of Kerala have reasons to believe that paddy lands comprised in the kayal padasekharams of Alleppey District specified in the Schedule below will be left follow during (he ensuing cultivation season;

And Whereas for maintaining supplies of paddy and rice which are essential to the life of the community, it is necessary to provide for bringing under cultivation such paddy lands and for the growing therein of paddy.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(b) of sub-rule (1) of R.113 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, the Government of Kerala hereby order that every person in possession or effective control of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(Ker) 183

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the orders under R.113(1)(b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, were administrative in nature and that rules of natural justice did not apply to them.

Login now and unlock premium legal research