IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Limited, Represented By Its Head - Legal Sri. Sumith Babu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Its Chief Secretary To Government – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.28808 of 2021
Decided On : 12-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's claims and legal arguments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court’s analysis of the jurisdictional facts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
The above writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the proceeding No.DCKLM/14012/ 2019-L 12, dated 03.12.2021 (Ext.P18), of the 3rd respondent, taking over an extent of 4.04 Acres of land in Re.Sy.No.15 of Block No.189 of Kollam West Village, invoking the power under the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 and to quash the same. Petitioner also seeks other consequential reliefs.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and holds properties in various parts of Kerala, which are mainly rubber and tea plantations. Petitioner is the absolute owner of 4.04 Acres of land comprised in R.Sy.No.15 (Old Sy. Nos. 7450, 7453, 7454A, 7454B & 7456) of Block No.189 of Kollam West Village. The said property, along with other properties, was purchased by M/s. Harrisons and Crosfield (UK) Ltd from one Mr.Duncan Grant Cameron, by virtue of a sale deed No.2596 of 1912 of SRO, Kollam (Ext.P14). Thereafter, M/s. Harrisons and Crosfield (UK) Ltd. was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property after paying the Land Tax and other statutory dues to the Government. With the coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 , M/s. Harrisons and Crosfield Ltd. filed a ceiling return as provided under Section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of the properties held by the said Company, and the property which is the subject matter of this writ petition was one of the items of property included in the said ceiling return. The Taluk Land Board, Kollam, as per order dated 24.01.1979, held that the Company had an extent of 43.78.605 Acres of land as on 01.01.1970 and out of the said property, an extent of 24.90.484 Acres of land was liable to be exempted under the provisions contained in Section 81 of the . The Taluk Land Board, as per Ext.P1 proceedings, held that the Company is entitled to retain an extent of 15 Acres, which is the ceiling limit prescribed under the and the Company was directed to surrender an extent of 3.88.121 Acres of land in various survey numbers. Accordingly, the Company surrendered the excess land which was taken possession of by the Tahsildar, Kollam, on 17.11.1983, as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 29.11.1983. Later, in the year 1979, all the assets and liabilities of the Company-M/s.Harrisons and Crosfield (UK) Ltd. was transferred to an Indian Company, Harrisons & Crosfield ( India) Limited, by virtue of a Scheme of Arrangement as approved by this Court as per Ext.P3 order in Company Petition No.24 of 1979. Later, M/s. Harrisons and Crosfield (India) Ltd., by virtue of the Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation approved by this Court as per Ext.P4 order, merged with M/s. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. Thus, all the assets held by M/s Harrisons & Crosfield (India) Limited were transferred to M/s.Malayalam Plantations (India) Limited and Ext.P5, fresh certificate of incorporation consequent on change of name was issued by the Registrar of Companies, Kerala and the name of M/s. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. was changed to M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Limited. In the year 1990, the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) No. II, Quilon issued Ext.P6 notice to the petitioner stating that the Survey Department proposes to survey the lands situated in Sy.Nos.7450, 7453 & 7454 of Kollam West Village in connection with the acquisition of the said land for public purposes. Later, Ext.P7 notification was issued by the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) proposing to acquire the subject property for the purpose of construction of an office complex at Pallithottam. In the said notice, it was specifically stated that the schedule properties were in the possession of the petitio
Jagadeesachandran Nair K. and Others v. E.K. Mamomohanan Pandarthil and Others
Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala
Carona Ltd. v Parvathy Swaminathan and Sons
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of Bombay
State of Kerala v. Mondoli Hydru
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Others
Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya
The court ruled that the petitioner's right to property under Article 300A is protected, and the District Collector failed to establish jurisdictional facts for declaring land as abandoned under the ....
The court held that leasehold rights are protected and cannot be violated without due process, stating that the property cannot be declared escheated without a legal basis.
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 Kerala Land Conservancy Act does not permit summary eviction in the presence of bona fide title disputes, requiring civil adjudication for property rights conflicts.
One must assess if District Collector would obtain any right in law to declare “Gift Deed” to be invalid or illegal, even assuming that there was any violation of FERA/FEMA, while it was executed.
Local authorities must institute a court suit to declare property as escheat under the Act; unilateral declarations without due process are invalid.
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....
The court upheld that construction permits are mandatory and necessitated an inquiry into the petitioner's property title under the KDH Act before addressing eviction disputes.
The petitioner is required to exhaust statutory remedies under the Kerala Land Tax Act before filing a writ petition in the High Court.
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.