The Government can terminate leases for public purposes under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, provided adequate notice is given, affirming the principle of substantial compliance.

JUDGMENT :

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Ext.P15 G.O. dated 11.06.2025 is under challenge in this Writ Petition, as per which, landed property having an extent of two acres in the hands of the petitioner Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union ('E.R.C.M.P Union', for short) has been bifurcated, limiting the user of 70 cents to the petitioner/E.R.C.M.P Union and allotting the remaining 130 cents to the 6^th respondent/Kerala State Livestock Development Board (the 'K.L.D Board', for short) in connection with a new Scheme of the Central Government. Petitioner/E.R.C.M.P Union essentially contends that a lease of the said land for a period of 99 years, given to the 4^th respondent/Federation (under which the petitioner claims), cannot be revoked and resumed in the manner reflected in the impugned Ext.P15. On the other hand, the Government and other respondents, except the 4^th respondent (remained ex parte), would contend that there is no concluded lease, as claimed by the petitioner Union; that the chilling plant at Munnar, located in the subject two acres was not transferred to the petitioner/E.R.C.M.P Union; and that their possession simplicitor can very well be revoked and resumed by Ext.P15, for the reasons stated therein. The following chronology of events will unfold the facts which led to the issuance of the impugned Ext.P15 G.O.:

2. The specific case pleaded in the Writ Petition is that the above said two acres of land vests with the petitioner Union and the petitioner had made substantial improvements therein. Ext.P11 possession certificate is relied upon. Thus, the petitioner Union sets up title and ownership over the disputed two acres of land; and the title of the Government is denied. The specific ground canvassed is that, where a party denies title of its rival, only the Civil Courts can declare the title, in terms of the Specific Relief Act. The Government has no power or jurisdiction to declare that the petitioner Union has no title. The contention of the Government that the chilling plant at Munnar was not legally and formally transferred to the petitioner Union is patently incorrect. The lease was for 99 years and the petitioner is entitled to hold the subject property for another 59 years. That being so, Ext.P15 G.O. purporting to divest the petitioner of the title in respect of 130 cents, out of the two acres, is grossly illegal, is the contention urged.

3. The contesting 3^rd respondent (the Secretary to the Government, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying) filed a counter affidavit narrating the proceedings which transpired between the various entities and specifically contending, on the basis of Exts.R3(d), R3(f), and R3(i), that the Munnar chilling plant was not formally transferred to the petitioner Union. However, the temporary transfer of the subject land, including the Munnar chilling plant, is seen admitted in paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit, though the 3^rd respondent would contend that the Munnar chilling plant was not being operated by the petitioner Union. It was then contended that enough opportunity has been granted to the petitioner Union to produce documents of title, if any, and even within the extended time, no document could be produced by the petitioner. It is accordingly that Ext.P15 Order was passed enabling the 4^th respondent K.C.M.M.F (under which the petitioner Union claims) to retain 70 cents of land (out of the subject 2 acres), so as to use the marketing hub and training center currently being run by th