Devan Ramachandran J.,

If one were to measure this writ petition solely by its forensic merits and factual facets, we are certain that it would not justify its longevity in this Court from the year 2008.

2. At the heart of controversy in this case is the action taken by the Revenue authorities of the Government of Kerala under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as KLC Act for short], to resume an extent of 115.8900 hectares of land in Ernad-Manjeri, which is claimed to be in the possession of the first petitioner herein.

3. The first petitioner claims that it is a public limited company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and asserts to be in possession of the afore extent of land under valid title. The second petitioner is stated to be one of its share holders.

4. However, the claim of the first petitioner over the property in question has been refuted by the competent Authorities under the KLC Act, leading to Exts. P22, P27 and P32 orders, issued by the concerned Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Government respectively. The petitioners impugn these orders in this writ petition on various grounds, but primarily predicating that they are entitled to hold possession over the property and to resist action under the KLC Act because the first petitioner-Company is a cultivating tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as KLR Act].

5. We have heard Sri. Joseph Kodianthara, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri. Isaac Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. M. Ramesh Chander, learned Senior counsel who is assisting this Court as Amicus Curiae; Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent-Zamorin Raja of Calicut; Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Malabar Devaswom Board; Sri. S. Ramesh, the learned counsel for the 9th respondent and Sri. Mohammed Ansar K.J., the learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue.

6. Before we venture into an assessment of the factual contentions raised by the petitioners, it will be apposite and necessary to briefly state the essential facts involved.

7. The first petitioner claims possession over the property in question under two lease deeds, both executed by the Zamorin Raja of Kozhikode in his capacity as the Managing Trustee of Sree Panthalloor Bhagavathi Devaswom, copies of which have been placed on record as Exts.P1 and P2. These Lease Deeds are conceded to be in favour of a person by name Sri. K.M. Cheriyan and the said individual was granted lease of the properties for a 60 year period. It is admitted that the said lease deeds were registered as Documents No. 1189 of 1943 and 1190 of 1943 on 04.09.1943 and that it was to expire, as per its terms, on 04.09.2003.

8. Even when Exts.P1 and P2 lease deeds were in force, Sri. K.M. Cheriyan transferred the entire extent of land covered by it to an entity by name Panthalloor Plantations in the year 1956. In the same year, the afore Panthalloor Plantations transferred 200 acres, out of the 400 acres covered by Exts.P1 and P2, in favour of a company by name Devon Tea & Produce Co. Ltd and the balance 200 acres to the first petitioner herein. Subsequently, in the year 1969, as we see from the records available, the aforementioned Devon Tea & Produce Company Ltd transferred 200 acres available with them to the first petitioner herein as per a Sale Deed dated 10.03.1969. It is thus that the first petitioner claims to be in possession of the property involved herein on the strength of the aforesaid transactions.

9. As we have already indicated above, the period of lease granted under Exts.P1 and P2 Lease Deeds expired on 04.09.2003 and it appears that action was initiated by the Panthalloor Bhagavathi Devaswom to resume the land and that an Original petition was filed before this Court, numbered as O.