SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Scoobee Day Garments (India) Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 33560 of 2022, W.P. (C) No. 425 of 2023
Decided On : 07-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM THOMAS GEORGE
For the Respondent:BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

IMPORTANT POINT
Exemption from land ceiling limits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act is essential for the establishment of Private Industrial Parks, and conditions imposed by the government must align with established schemes.

Headnote:

(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Sections 81(3), 82, and 87 - Petitioner challenges orders regarding the establishment of a Private Industrial Park, seeking to keep proceedings against properties in abeyance pending the application decision - Petitioner purchased land and sought to establish an industrial unit, asserting the government,s scheme allows for exemptions from land ceiling provisions. (Paras 2 , 3 , 9 )

(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that exemption under Section 81(3) can be granted for industrial purposes, and the government,s decision to exempt land from ceiling limits is critical for establishing a Private Industrial Park. (Paras 6 , 8 )

(C) Findings of Court - The court found that the government's directive to seek exemption prior to considering the application was unjustified, as the application for the permit should be evaluated on its own merits without additional conditions. (Paras 9 )

(D) Issues - The main issues included whether the government,s orders conflicted with the established scheme and the legitimacy of requiring exemption applications prior to permit consideration. (Paras 4 , 8 ) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that the government,s insistence on seeking exemption before processing the application was inconsistent with the established scheme, thus directing a reconsideration of the application without such preconditions. (Paras 8 , 9 ) (F) Result - The court set aside Ext.P18 and directed the government to consider the application for the Private Industrial Estate Developer permit without additional conditions. (Para 9 ) (G) Parties involved - Petitioner and Government of Kerala.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

Since a common issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In W.P.(C)No.33560 of 2022, the petitioner challenges Ext.P18 order, whereas in W.P.(C)No.425 of 2023 the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P28 and seeks for a direction to respondents 2 to 3 to keep in abeyance all proceedings initiated against the petitioner's properties under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , till a final decision is taken and concluded on the application given by the petitioner to establish a Private Industrial Park, which is subject matter of W.P.(C)No.33560 of 2022.

3. Petitioner, a company with an intention to establish a "Private Industrial Park", purchased 52 acres of land by 7 registered documents executed between 31.10.1994 and 31.05.1996, situated in Palakkad District. As per Ext.P2 order produced in W.P.(C)No.33560 of 2022, permission was granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for setting up an industrial unit. The Private Industrial Park was sought to be established on the basis of Ext.P3 Scheme of the Government for establishment of Private Industrial Parks as notified by the Government in Ext.P4 Government Order. One of the conditions of eligibility to apply for permission to set up a Private Industrial Park was that the promoter should have a minimum of 50 acres of land, which was later reduced to 25 acres by subsequent orders. It is also specified in Ext.P3 that once an Industrial Park is sanctioned, it will confer a right on the Developer for exemption from the provisions of Section 81(3)(a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963(for short 'the KLR Act, 1963'). It is contended that the initial investment expected was about Rs.100 crores, over and above the cost of land in the possession of the petitioner and the project if launched could offer employment to hundreds of people. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 formal application for the issuance of a Private Industrial Development Permit. A detailed inspection was conducted by a high power committee and Ext.P7 report was submitted, wherein it was recommended that the subject property having an extent of 52.87 acres is suitable for setting up a Private Industrial Estate. Thereafter no further action was taken in this regard. The petitioner would contend that if Section 82 of the KLR Act, 1963 is to apply, by which the maximum area of land that can be held by the petitioner is only 15 acres going by Section 82(1)(d) of the Act, the same would be inconsistent with the scheme contemplated by the Government since as per Ext.P3, in order to apply for permission to establish a Private Industrial Park, the applicant should have a minimum of 50 acres. It is in the said circumstance that Section 81(3) will become relevant, which would enable the Government from exempting the land on account of any special use to which such land is put, from the provisions of Chapter III of the KLR Act, 1963. It is taking note of the said provision that the Government in Ext.P3 has assured that once permission to establish an Industrial Park is granted, that will confer a right of exemption under Section 81(3) from the provisions of Chapter III of the KLR Act, 1963. In the light of the above, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the question as to whether the land held by the petitioner is 'excess land' or not is not relevant for the consideration of petitioner's application for establishing an Industrial Park and the same would be relevant only if the petitioner's application is rejected otherwise. Since nothing positive was turning out, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P(C)No.11939/2021 and this Court by Ext.P9 judgment directed the Government to take a decision on Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner for the issuance of a Private Industrial Estate Developer permit. Though a hearing was conducted,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top