Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1790
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
M.C.GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/16705/2021
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, JAGAN ABRAHAM, M.GEORGE, SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, SHRI. JAFAR KHAN
The decision establishes that restrictions on land alienation under the Kerala Land Reforms Act must adhere to principles of equal treatment and cannot violate prior judgments permitting such sales.
Headnote:
KLR Act - Land Alienation - Section 81E, 120A, 72(1), 128 - The court analyzed the legality of restrictions imposed on the petitioner for selling plantation land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, highlighting key interpretations of fragmentation and sale provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a restriction order from the District Collector preventing the sale of his plantation land, arguing that the order was unconstitutional and contradicted a prior court judgment allowing him to alienate his properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not treated equally compared to others allowed to sell portions of the estate, asserting the government had no statutory basis to prevent the sale pending a Supreme Court judgment.
Issues: Whether the District Collector's order to restrict the sale of the petitioner's land was lawful, especially in light of previous judgments allowing similar transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that restrictions on the sale were improper as they unfairly targeted the petitioner without valid legal grounds, countering the earlier judgment’s allowance for sales of similar properties.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the District Collector's order and permitting the sale of land under stipulated conditions.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P4 order of the District Collector, through which he has been now restricted, as a peremptory order, from selling his property, comprised of 257.79 Acres of land in Resurvey Nos. 182/7, 186/2, 187, 188/2 of Kerala Estate Village in Nilambur.
2. Sri.M.A. Abdul Hakkim learned counsel for the asserted petitioner, asserted that Ext.P4 is egregiously improper because it says that the property was originally held by a foreign company and that the State intends to file a Civil Suit for resumption of the same, but that no such action has been either initiated or completed as of now. He then argued that the restriction of sale of the property vide Ext.P4 cannot be countenanced in law in any manner, because, in Ext.P3 judgment, a learned Judge of this court has already declared that his client is at liberty to alienate his properties which are the same as those which are involved in this case - and that if any such deeds are presented for registration, it will have to be acceded to by the competent Authorities. He thus contends that Ext.P4 is wholly improper, unlawful and unconstitutional and prays that the same be set aside, particularly because the District Collector appears to have used his powers under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KLR Act' for short), irregularly, solely to frustrate Ext.P3 judgment, which is evident because none of the statutory criteria for exercise of such power has been even whispered in the said order.
3. The afore submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were vehemently refuted by Sri.Jaffer Khan learned Senior Government Pleader, saying that Ext.P4 has been issued because the property in question was originally owned and possessed by a foreign company and that it was, thereafter, alienated by them illegally without sanction of law, which has now persuaded the Government to take appropriate action, including by initiation of civil suits against such transactions. He then submitted that, in addition to this, any attempt to fragment the property, which is an Estate enjoying the protectional ambit of Section 81E of the Act is illegal and therefore, that the District Collector is within the jurisdiction to have invoked Section 120A of the ‘KLR Act’ to interdict such action.
4. Sri.Jaffer Khan went on to explain that the resolve of the Government against allowing fragmentation of the Estates/Plantations which enjoy the benefits under Section 81E of the Act, emanates from the affirmative declaration of a learned Division Bench of this Court in in One Earth One Life (Reg.No.S.246 of 1988) and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2019(1) KLT 985 ], which has unambiguously held that a combined reading of Section 81(4) and explanation of I and II of Section 87 of the ‘KLR Act’ would render it perspicuous that the fragmentation of an Estate will have to be treated as ‘conversion of plantation to some other category of land’. He thus submitted that the directions of the District Collector in Ext.P4 are guided exclusively by the afore view of this Court because the transactions now attempted by the petitioner is certainly to circumvent the provisions of the ‘KLR Act’.
5. Before I speak affirmatively on the rival contentions as afore, I am certainly bound to record that, with respect to the properties in the same Estate and which are admittedly enjoying the benefits under Section 81E of the Act, a series of judgments were delivered by this Court including in WP(C)No.20675/2019 and connected matters, wherein, after noticing the afore submissions, transactions of sale were allowed leading to the transfer of Registry in the name of the purchasers, however, making it clear that even if the Estate is purchased in tranches, the buyer will have to maintain it in the same nature as it was bought by him and that any violation of this would enable the competent Authorities to take necessary steps for its resum
