IMPORTANT POINTS:" The utilisation of the land could be restricted balancing the requirement to conserve the environment, requirement of food and also the need for commercial and non commercial purposes- It is possible to classify the land - agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial etc., so as to confine sphere of the activity of the holder of the land within the limits of classification
" The judicial control over the use of the land would be available when the threat is imminent based on evidence. Legislature power prevails where it is required to regulate class behaviour. All attempt on the part of the Government on a good cause, therefore, would end in vain in the absence of legislation.
" Exempted land will have to be used for the purpose for which it was exempted and on being used for non exempted purposes, proceedings can be initiated for re-determination of ceiling.
" The holder of the land is entitled to enjoy all such benefits being the holder of the land. He would be entitled to all such revenue documents to utilise the land for any such purposes.

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. These consolidated Writ Petitions present a principle issue in regard to the utilisation of the land which was exempted under S.81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, the “KLR Act”). These matters were heard on different dates. However, it require consolidation on account of common issue arisen in the context of the demand made by the petitioners before the revenue authorities for obtaining possession and sketch etc. for utilising the land for other purposes.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel, Shri N.N. Sugunapalan and Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas, Advocates Dr.George Abraham and Shri T.G. Rajendran on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard learned Additional Advocate General Shri Ranjith Thampan ably assisted by the learned Government Pleader Shri Jaffer Khan.

3. The question is whether an exempted land under S.81 of the KLR Act on being used for purposes other than which it was exempted, the Government would be justified in rejecting the request for revenue documents which require for using the land for other purposes. There are two sets of landowners, one set of landowner claims that they are using the land for other exempted categories. The other set of landowners are using the exempted land for non exempted categories.

4. The KLR Act is an enactment based on sound principles of social justice. The land was held by the Tillers in different forms like on perpetual lease, the lease which does not require renewal, lease in the name of kuzhikkanam granted to the tenant with a view to improve soil, mortgage known under different names. These holders of land do not have an absolute right to hold and enjoy. The generic title of ownership of land, therefore, is vested with the landlord. There are other types of occupants known as kudikidappukaran, who were in occupation of the hut and had no homestead or land of a specified limit. The KLR Act conferred the title to these occupants through various procedures under the Act. Apart from this, embarking upon the ethos of welfare State, the State also thought fit to restrict the ceiling of the holdings. The State thought that allowing the owner to keep the larger extent of holdings beyond the sphere of economic production would result in inequalities of wealth. Accordingly, the stipulated ceiling limit. This ceiling limit is determined with reference notification under S.83. Notification was issued on 1.1.1970. The land above the ceiling limit would be vested with the Government. No person can hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit. The excess land has to be surrendered to the Government. The procedure of surrender is referred to in S.85 of the KLR Act read with the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 (for short, the “KLR Ceiling Rules”). It is only thereafter, the land would be vested under S.86. Perhaps these provisions are crucial in this case to decide the fate of these Writ Petitions.

5. Section 81(1)(e) exempt plantation. This exemption form part of Chapter III of the KLR Act. Chapter III provides a restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess land. Therefore, while calculating the ceiling area, if the land was used for any of the purposes specifically referred under S.81, such land would be excluded for determination of ceiling area as an exempted land. The Apex Court in Karimbil Kunhikoman vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 723 as well as the Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala AIR 1972 SC 2027 had adverted to the reasons for granting the exemption to the plantations. This was taking note of its contribution to the national economy. Therefore, while fixing the ceiling, larger public interest or State interest weighed in favour of granting the exemption to the plantations. Rest of the non exempted category of land was treated based on the individual perspective. Accordingly, the ceiling was fixed to take over excess land to give it to landles