Back
1972 Supreme(Mad) 584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. Narayana Pillai and E.K. Moidu, JJ.
Super Rubbers Private Ltd.
Versus
State of Kerala
O.P. Nos. 4194, 4218, 4230 and 4231 of 1972.
Decided On : 05 October 1972
Kalathil Velayudhan Nair, V.S. Moothathu, N.R.K. Nair, K.J. Joseph and T.K.M. Unnithan, for Petitioner.
T.C.N. Menon, Government Pleader, for Respondent.
The Government was justified in invoking rule 113 (1) (b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, for cultivating paddy in certain reclaimed paddy lands in the Vembanad lake in Kuttanad in the Alleppey District, as the provisions of the Defence of India Act were more stringent than those in the Land Utilisation Order, 1967.
Headnote:
DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES, 1971 - RULE 113 (1) (B) AND (2) - CULTIVATION OF PADDY IN CERTAIN RECLAIMED PADDY LANDS IN THE VEMBANAD LAKE IN KUTTANAD IN THE ALLEPPEY DISTRICT - ORDERS PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER RULE 113 (1) (B) AND (2) - VALIDITY - CHALLENGED - HELD, THE ORDERS ARE VALID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the validity of the orders passed by the State Government under rule 113 (1) (b) and (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, for cultivating paddy in certain reclaimed paddy lands in the Vembanad lake in Kuttanad in the Alleppey District. The petitioner contended that the Defence of India Act, 1971, under which the 1971 Rules were published, was passed in the face of war and that after the war use of the Rules could not be resorted to. It was also contended that the Government should have taken action under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967, issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, instead of invoking rule 113 (1) (b) and (2). Further, it was contended that the Government was unjustified in passing the order under rule 113 (2) because the petitioner had really taken steps to cultivate the land with paddy and that no opportunity was given to it before passing the order to show that.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Defence of India Act, 1971, was not intended only for the duration of the war and that the after-effects of the war were still looming large. It was not for the Court to consider the policy for not lifting the emergency. The Court further held that the Government was justified in invoking rule 113 (1) (b) and (2) instead of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967, as the provisions of the Defence of India Act were more stringent than those in the Land Utilisation Order. The Court also held that the Government was justified in passing the order under rule 113 (2) as the petitioner had failed to comply with the direction in the order under rule 113 (1) (b) to take steps to cultivate the land with paddy.
Issues: 1. Whether the Defence of India Act, 1971, could be used after the war? 2. Whether the Government should have taken action under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967, instead of invoking rule 113 (1) (b) and (2)? 3. Whether the Government was justified in passing the order under rule 113 (2) without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show that it had taken steps to cultivate the land with paddy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Defence of India Act, 1971, was not intended only for the duration of the war and the after-effects of the war were still looming large. It was not for the Court to consider the policy for not lifting the emergency. 2. The Government was justified in invoking rule 113 (1) (b) and (2) instead of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967, as the provisions of the Defence of India Act were more stringent than those in the Land Utilisation Order. 3. The Government was justified in passing the order under rule 113 (2) as the petitioner had failed to comply with the direction in the order under rule 113 (1) (b) to take steps to cultivate the land with paddy.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions with costs, but allowed the petitioners to take the yield from the trees standing on the bunds and remove from the bunds and the buildings and sheds on them motors and accessories and the other articles mentioned by the petitioners as being there.
2. The land involved in O.P. No. 4194 of 1972 is in “T” block. It is surrounded on all sides by water. Agricultural operations in Kuttanad are peculiar. Immediately after the harvest which usually takes place in January the lands are ploughed. When ploughing takes place the internal bunds are also laid. Thereafter water is let into the lends. For several months thereafter the lands would be under water. After repair of the outer bunds the lands are dewatered. Thereafter seeds are sown.
3. Early this year under the auspices of the Marxist Communist Party a “Land Grab Agitation” was started in the State. Campaigns for forcibly taking lands held by land-holders in excess of the ceiling area fixed in the Land Reforms Act were organised by the Party. Threats were issued to cultivators that they would not be allowed to carry on agricultural operations peacefully. In a statement issued by Sri A.K. Gopalan, a leader of the Marxist Communist Party, and published in the newspaper ‘Mathrubhoomi’ dated 1st August, 1972, Exhibit P-1, he said that even though members of his party were not against land-holders raising cultivations in such excess lands, they would not allow the land-holders to take the yield from the lands.
4. Disputes arose between the agriculturists and agricultural labourers of the area regarding the wages to be paid to the labourers at the various stages of paddy cultivation for the agricultural season. These disputes started by June 1972. Kuttanad Agriculturists’ Association which represents almost all the cultivators in Kuttanad area took a decision that if the dispute regarding the wages to be paid to the labourers during the agricultural season, 1972-73, was not settled and peaceful cultivation was assured the agriculturists in Kuttanad would not cultivate the lands and would allow the lands to lie fallow during the 1972-73 season. On 17th August, 1972 the Minister in charge of Agriculture issued a statement published in the newspaper ‘Hindu’ dated 18th August, 1972, Exhibit P-4, that if the cultivators did not give up their ‘no cultivation programme’, the Government would invoke the 1971 rules and take over the uncultivated lands in Kuttanad.
5. On 21st August, 1972 the Government notified the order, Exhibit P-5, under rule 113 (1) (6). It reads thus:
"S.R.O. No. 432/72- Whereas the Government of Kerala have reasons to believe that paddy lards comprised in the kayal padasekharams of Allepey District specified in the Schedule below will be left fallow during the ensuing cultivation season;
And whereas for maintaining supplies of paddy and rice which are essential to the life of the community, it is necessary to provide for bringing under cultivation such paddy lands and for the growing therein of paddy.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 113 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, the Government, of Kerala hereby order that every per
