2019 Supreme(Ker) 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, SHIRCY V., JJ.
One Earth One Life (Reg. No. S. 246/1988) Rep. by Mr. Tony Thomas – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala Rep. by its Chief Secretary – Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 22195 of 2017, 6815, 28496 of 2016, 8950 of 2015
Decided On : 27-02-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS :• There is no necessity to empower the Government to grant exemption for any commercial or industrial purpose in public interest when commercial sites are already exempted under S.81 (1)(q) of the Act. • The offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act is not made out and also that the sanction under Section 15 of the Act was not obtained before initiation of prosecution, it has held that the criminal proceedings is a futile exercise. Therefore it has to be terminated in the interest of justice.• Direct the Taluk Land Board to deal with the issue with the company/declarant and all the interested and aggrieved parties on the party array in accordance with the provisions of the KLR Act to give a quietus-without all the parties on the party array and without hearing the grievance of all the aggrieved parties, a correct and just adjudication is not possible in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:The Land Reforms Act -Section 81 (1)(a) - Section 87 of the KLR Act, to reconsider the issue and to dispose of the same afresh with all parties concerned on the party array, though it may be time consuming-The term 'commercial site' as defined in S.2(5) of the Act read with S.81(1)(q) of the Act has to be given a narrower meaning only- What is relevant under S.81(3) of the Act is that there should be public interest as opposed to private interest and the land bona fide required for the purpose intended

       Statement of facts :

       The estate is a rubber plantation having a total extent of 2438 acres (987.27 hectares) estate comes under the exempted category under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act as it is a rubber plantation - Due to some financial problems in the year 2001 the company decided to sell 450 acres which constitute the Thamarassery Division of Kinalur estate -Later the company decided to sell the entire estate as per its resolution dated 7.9.2002. Consequently, on 27.7.2003 the company entered into an agreement with Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty, he being the highest bidder for sale of the entire estate for a sale consideration of Rs. 31.10 Crores. The dispute of the laborers with the company was also amicably settled on 28.2.2003 as per Ext.P2 settlement agreement. As per Ext.P2, the company has to pay all the statutory liabilities of the permanent workers, including gratuity as the workers agreed to resign voluntarily from the estate. In addition to the above the company has to pay to all permanent workers 10 days' salary per year for the number of completed years of service per worker as ex gratia. All permanent workers will be paid ex-gratia at the rate of 25 days' salary for every year for the remaining service up to the completion of the age of 58 years. It was also agreed by the purchaser Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty that the permanent workers on the rolls of the estate staying in the labor line will be given an extent of 3 cents of land in the labour line and 100 cents of land elsewhere and permanent workers who do not stay in labour line will be given 103 cents. The workers have to bear the stamp duty, registration and documentation charges to register the land as per the settlement. This agreement itself is illegal as it was made with an intention to fragment the estate and to sell it to strangers under the guise of settling the dispute of the workers. On 28.2.2003, 10th respondent issued Ext.P3 letter to the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Calicut stating that the company decided to sell the estate after settling all the liabilities of the workers as per law and the compensation will be paid by Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty, who is the proposed purchaser of the estate. Thereafter, C.A. No. 75/2003 was also filed before the Company Law Board seeking permission to conclude the sale of the properties in terms of the decision of the Board of Directors. The said application was disposed of on 7.11.2003 by Ext.P4.

       Finding of the court :

       (1) W.P. (C) No. 28496 of 2016:

       Suo motu proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy against the Company under Section 87 of KLR Act is reopened- The said proceedings have to be pursued afresh in accordance with the provisions of the KLR Act after issuing notice to the 10th respondent Company, all the persons included in Ext.P18 Government Order and all other interested parties concerned and shall be disposed of at the earliest-

       (2) W.P. (C) No. 22195 of 2017:

       The reliefs sought for is to quash Ext.P23 which is Ext.P18 in W.P. (C) No. 28496/ 2016 as well to stop fragmentation and sale of the estate. The reliefs sought for is covered by the reliefs granted in W.P. (C) No. 28496/2016-Disposed of.

       (3) W.P. (C) No. 8950 of 2015:

       The relief sought for is to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct and complete investigation on the complaint filed by the petitioner therein- As the Taluk Land Board has been directed to consider the issues involved afresh in the wake of the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 28496 of 2016 and the prayer to set aside Exts.P18/P23 is disallowed, the compliant pending has to be disposed of by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

       (4) W.P. (C) No. 6815/2015:

       Similar reliefs have been sought for to direct the 4th respondent/the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct and complete the investigation on Ext P16. As the Taluk Land Board has to consider the issue involved afresh pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 28496 of 2016 and that the prayer to set aside Ext.P18/P23 is disallowed, the compliant pending has to be disposed of in accordance with law.

       Result : Writ petitions are disposed of.