IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Limited – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Chief Secretary - Respondent
WP(C)Nos.20484 OF 2020 and 22403 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession of estates confirmed for over 100 years. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's claims of ownership disputed by the state. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. conditions for cutting trees enforced as per statutes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. revenue records do not confer property title. (Para 21 , 22 , 26 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, namely, M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at Bristow Road, Willingdon Island, Cochin, has filed W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. dated 06.06.2019 issued by the 1st respondent State, Ext.P10 notice dated 05.09.2020 issued by the 6th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakkanal, Ext.P11 notice dated 11.09.2020 issued by the 5th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam, Ext.P12 communication dated 09.09.2020 issued by the 4th respondent Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar Division to the 5th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam and Ext.P13 notice dated 11.09.2020 issued by the 5th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State and the 6th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakkanal, to receive land tax in respect of Upper Surianalle Estate, having an extent of 2451 Acres comprised in Chinnakkanal Village of Udumbanchola Taluk and Lockhart Estate, having an extent of 1594 Acres comprised in Kannan Devan Hills Village of Devikulam Taluk, without imposing any condition as stipulated in Ext.P7 Government order dated 06.06.2019; an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to carry on with its normal agricultural operation in respect of Upper Surianalle and Lockhart Estates, including that of cutting and removing fuel trees from those estates, based on Exts.P8, P8(a) and P9 permits issued by the 5th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam.
2. On 30.03.2022, when W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020 came up for consideration, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted an interim order, whereby the official respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to remit land tax on the properties involved in the writ petition, as an interim measure, which was directed to be done immediately on the requisite amount being tendered for such purpose, following due procedure, and in compliance of every other requisite statutory requirements. In the said order it was made clear that, since the aforesaid directions are being made as an interim measure, no adverse entries will be made in the tax receipts to be issued in terms of the said order. As regards the fuel trees are concerned, by the order dated 30.03.2022, the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to cut and use the same, without removing it out of the estates concerned, as per Exts.P8, P8(a) and P9 permits, subject to the overall supervision of the competent revenue authorities, which shall also be subject to the final decision in the writ petition.
3. In I.A.No.5 of 2022 filed by the State to vacate the aforesaid interim order dated 30.03.2022, the learned Single Judge passed an order dated 07.12.2023, whereby that interim order stands modified as follows;
“Resultantly, as an interim measure, this Court directs the official respondents to allow the petitioner to remit land tax in respect of Surianalle Estate and Special grant tax in respect of Lockhart Estate, which shall be done immediately on the requisite amounts being tendered for such purpose, following due procedure and in compliance of every statutory requirements.”
4. During the pendency of W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.22403 of 2024, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. dated 06.06.2019 of the 1strespon
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala
The imposition of conditions on land tax acceptance under G.O. dated 06.06.2019 was held illegal, infringing on the petitioner's statutory rights and subjecting property ownership claims to arbitrary....
Disputes regarding title and possession of land necessitate proper judicial scrutiny, especially where evictions under the Land Conservancy Act are challenged on grounds of legitimate claims. Governm....
The court upheld the State's authority to declare land as reserved forest, emphasizing that tenure-holders cannot claim proprietary rights over such land post-abolition of Zamindari.
The Kerala Land Conservancy Act does not permit summary eviction in the presence of bona fide title disputes, requiring civil adjudication for property rights conflicts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputed questions of fact relating to title and possession should be decided by the competent civil court, and the power of judicial review i....
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine land title disputes, which must be settled in civil courts, rendering related appeals maintainable under proper legal challenges.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes over land, which must be adjudicated in civil court.
The court ruled that prior permissions regarding land use are limited and require statutory application for any changes in tenure, reaffirming the need for compliance with land laws.
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.