Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. W.P. (C) .No. 14251 of 2012 is filed by two petitioners, of whom one is stated to be an Advocate practicing before this Court. W.P. (C). No.213 of 2013 is filed by one describing himself as a Trade union activist.

2. The crux of the Writ Petitions is the bundle of allegations that a company, Harrisons Malayalam Limited, hereinafter referred to as ”HML”, and its transferees,’ including Gospel for Asia, for short, “GFA”, are holding lands which are essentially Government lands and the concerned statutory authorities are fighting shy to invoke and exercise authority under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as “L.C. Act”.

3. We have to note, before proceeding further, that a return filed before the Taluk Land Board, Vythiry by a company led to a revision under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 before this Court. After hearing that revision, quite elaborately and on an elaborate consideration of the entire factual matrix as placed before this Court then, very ably by the learned Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the State Government in that case, this Court made an order of remit to the Taluk Land Board as regards some of the issues covered by the ceiling proceedings.

4. With the passage of time, different litigations came, generating also the issue as to whether HML could be treated as the repository of title of the original holder of the lands, and also different other issues as to possession; excess land; allegations as to trespass by Government officials etc.”

5. With the passage of time, the State Government has filed O.P.(C).No. 3508 of 2011 invoking Art.228 along with Art.227 of the Constitution of India, pleading that the TLB proceedings before the Taluk Land Board, Vythiry, be called for to this Court since certain questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India arise for decision in that case. The learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the State has pointed out that the contentions of the State in that Original Petition have to be understood as broadly two-fold; (1) Constitutional issues relating to questions arising from the matter which stands remitted to the TLB by the revisional order of this Court; and (2) constitutional issues relatable to the entire TLB proceedings from its inception. The latter among the two grounds pointed out by her revolves on the State’s attempt to demonstrate that the entire transactions under which HML and its transferees now claim are ridden with violation of the Constitution and the laws, including FERA, FEMA and also various land laws. It is pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that, according to the Government, such fraud played, amounts to fraud on the Constitution and the lands in issue are essentially that which will have to be , treated as Government lands by way of escheat or applying the doctrine of bona vacantia as reflected in Art. 296 of the Constitution.

6. While the Writ Petitions in hand are filed primarily complaining about the inaction on the part of the statutory authorities under the L.C. Act, W.P.(C). No. 213 of 2013 also contains reliefs requiring interdictory orders and also directions having a bearing on the alleged amalgamation of companies and the conduct of officers of HML in India.

7. Having perused the quality of the pleadings in W.P.(C).No. 213 of 2013 and looking at the sanction order issued by the Company Court on the application approving the scheme of merger; particularly the conditions imposed thereby, we are of the view that exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 does not need to be extended to any matter touching the activities of H.M.L., since those are matters that could gain attention, if need be, in other jurisdictions, in accordance with law.

8. Be that as it may, if the Government stand by the assertion that the properties in the possession of H.M.L. or its transferees are Government lands or