The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issues raised did not give rise to substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, and the TLB was not a court subordinate to the High Court for invoking Article 228.

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. OP(C).No.2989 of 2011 is filed invoking Article 228 of the Constitution of India seeking that O.S.No.125 of 2007 pending before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta be withdrawn to this Court for the purpose of deciding the constitutional question stated to have arisen therein.

2. OP(C).No.3508 of 2011 is filed by the State of Kerala invoking Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India seeking that the records leading to and pending consideration before the Taluk Land Board, Vythiri, 'TLB', for short, as TLB(SW)37/81 be called for and quashed as the same is non est in law and that upon transfer of that proceedings, the question of law raised by the State under Article 228 of the Constitution of India be decided upholding the plea of the Government based on public policy and in public interest. A declaration that large extent of lands held by the respondent in that original petition is liable to be forfeited under the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964, for short, 'Escheats Act', is also sought for. The State has also sought for a decision, as if on a question of law, that the holding by the predecessor in interest of the respondent in that original petition, of large extent of land throughout the State of Kerala is in gross violation of land laws and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, for short, FERA', and that is a fraud on the Constitution of India warranting immediate action on the part of the State in public interest and based on public policy as enjoined by under Article 296 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioners in OP(C).No.2989 of 2011 contend that the Preamble to the Constitution and Articles 38 and 39 among the Directive Principles of State Policy uphold that the lands in India are for the exclusive benefits of the people of India and not for any foreign citizen or any foreign company and that the respondents in that original petition are not entitled to the benefit of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, 'KLR Act', for short. It is further contended by the petitioners that the respondents being part of a company registered in England, can in no way claim the benefits of the KLR Act. It is pointed out that such questions amount to substantial questions of law of interpretation of Constitution and hence, the original petition instituted by them is filed seeking reliefs under Article 228 of the Constitution of India.

4. The plea of the State in OP(C).No.3508 of 2011 revolves on the stand of the Government that the lands in the possession of the respondents are not those to which the benefit of the KLR Act inures and that even by a report of a High Level Committee constituted by the Government, the lands are liable to be got back from the respondents. The TLB proceedings referred to above are criticised as without jurisdiction and vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The declarant company is, according to the State, a foreign company and therefore, not entitled to file a declaration under the KLR Act. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings initiated in respect of the lands claimed by the respondents in various districts of the State of Kerala are void ab initio. According to the State, the provisions of the KLR Act apply only to a citizen born in India or a company incorporated in India and therefore, ceiling returns under the provisions of that Act can be filed only by such persons. The initiation of proceedings before the TLB is criticised and it is pleaded that the entire proceedings were initiated in respect of Government lands held by a foreign company either on lease or indentures executed by erstwhile Maharaja of Travancore and Cochin and Malabar States. The further plea of the State is that the facts that the entire holdings were conditional and that the proprietorship of the land vested with the Government were deliberately suppressed before the TLB by the declarant company. It is also pleaded that the TLB has proceeded with the case