IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J.
S.T. SADIQ S/O THAHA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 18663 of 2016
Decided On : 13-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging Sections 3A, 6A and 9 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Act) after its amendment by the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, 2015) and the order dated 6.8.2015 issued by the Government of Kerala taking over the Cashew Factory belonging to the petitioner under Section 3A of the 1974 Act. The petitioner also prays for a direction to restore the possession of the Cashew Factory of the petitioner and claims compensation for the illegal acquisition/taking over of the factory.
Facts in brief:
2. The petitioner was the owner of about 2.77 acres of land where a Cashew Factory known as M/s. Rajmohan Cashews Limited was functioning. According to the petitioner, the land/factory was leased out to the aforesaid M/s. Rajmohan Cashews Limited for a period of five years from 05.05.1981. It is stated that the factory and the associated buildings etc. were confined to about 97 cents out of the total extent of 2.77 acres and the remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes. On 02.05.1985, the petitioner leased out the factory and its premises to M/s. Janso Exports (P) Ltd. for the period from 02.05.1985 to 02.05.1987. On 19.09.1985 the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P2 notice (under Rule 3 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Rules, 1974) proposing to acquire/take over the Cashew Factory and providing to the petitioner and to the then occupier (M/s. Janso Exports Pvt. Ltd.) the right to make their objections. The grounds taken in Ext.P2 were that the factory was lying closed and there was no possibility of restarting its functioning in the immediate future. It was stated that the Government was, therefore, of the opinion that the situation may lead to large-scale unemployment of workers in the Cashew Factory. The petitioner filed an objection to Ext.P2 notice and also approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 9499/1985 challenging the validity of the notice as well as the validity of the provisions contained in the 1974 Act. On 11.06.1986, the Government of Kerala issued an order to take over the Cashew Factory and the entire land appurtenant to the same on the ground that there has been large-scale unemployment. O.P. No. 9499/1985 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.06.1986 was dismissed by this Court on 20.01.1994. The petitioner preferred S.L.P. (C) No. 8219/1994 to challenge the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 9499/1985.
3. On 12.5.1994, the Supreme Court through its judgment in Indian Nut Products & Others v. Union of India, (1994) 4 SCC 269 set aside the acquisition of various factories (other than that of the petitioner) on the ground that the notices issued were not in accordance with the requirement of the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the 1974 Act. The State Government was required to return the possession of the factories to the respective owners. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was disposed of (after granting leave) and it was declared that the matter was covered by the judgment in Indian Nut Products (supra). It was also held that the directions issued in paragraph 13 of the judgment in Indian Nut Products (supra) will apply to the petitioner as well. The order of the Supreme Court in the case of the petitioner is on record as Ext.P5.
4. Out of the total number of 46 factories that had been taken over under the 1974 Act, 36 had been entrusted to the Cashew Development Corporation and the remaining 10 factories were entrusted to the Kerala State Cashew Workers Apex Industrial Co-operative Society (CAPEX). Following the orders issued by the Supreme Court, out of the total number of 46 factories taken over by the Government in the manner indicated above, all the factories which had been taken over and entrusted to the Cashew Development Corporation (36 in number) were returned to the respective o
A.A. Padmanbhan v. State of Kerala and others
Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar
Chiranjit Lal Choudhuri v. Union of India
Chiranjitlal Chowdhri v. Union of India
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
Dhirendra Krishna Mandal v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs
Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and others
Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh
G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa
Habeeb Mohamad v. State of Hyderabad
In Re: The Kerala Education Bill
Indian Nut Products & Others v. Union of India
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & another v. State of Karnataka
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal
Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. State of Bombay
Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala and others
P. Venugopal v. Union of India
Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal and Others
Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar & others
Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others
Ramprasad Narain Sahi v. State of Bihar
S.M. Syed Mohammad & Company v. State of Andhra
S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore
S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and others
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1
Shri Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. & another v. State of Bihar
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
State of Gujarat and another v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others
State of Haryana v. Karnal Coop. Farmers' Society Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 363
State of Tamil Nadu v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 326
The amendments to the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 were declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14, as they discriminated against similarly situated factories and undermine....
The court affirmed that land acquisition can be valid if partly funded by the State, satisfying public purpose requirements, regardless of the controlling shareholding of the acquiring corporation.
The State had the legislative power to enact Act 4 of 2010 and the acquisition did not violate the petitioners' constitutional rights.
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
(1) There is presumption about constitutionality of law made by Parliament/State Legislature.(2) Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres concept of its exercise within a reasonable time.
The Court upheld the validity of land acquisition notifications, affirming the Government's discretion to dispense with notice under urgency, satisfying public purpose requirements for establishing a....
provisions of 1966 Act are neither repugnant to 2013 Act nor have been impliedly repealed on commencement of 2013 Act. The 1966 Act is a special Act whereas, 2013 Act is a general law. The provisions....
Acquisition of Land – Non passing of award – Lapse of proceedings - provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, is not applicable to an acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of the K....
The provisions of S.11A do not apply to emergency acquisitions under S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, and non-compliance with S.17(3A) does not invalidate the proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.