Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. RAVI, J
ABDULLA @ BAVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34714 OF 2019 | WP(C) NO. 15455 OF 2017 | WP(C) NO. 15542 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR, SRI.C.RAMAN, SRI.SAJU RAGHAVAN, SMT.M.J.SAJITHA
For the Respondents: SRI.JAFFAR KHAN
The absence of initiated ceiling proceedings against Directors undermines enforcement under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the orders issued under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act regarding excess land holdings. The Court found the orders unjustified as the ceiling proceedings against the individual Directors were not initiated. It quashed the orders and left room for future actions. 'The State will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 120A, if they propose to initiate any ceiling case against the individual Directors of M/s.Kaipadath Property Development Company Pvt.Ltd.' Interim orders issued in subsequent cases were also made absolute.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging unjustified orders regarding land. (Para 1) |
| 2. absence of individual ceiling proceedings. (Para 2) |
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos.34714 of 2019, 15455 of 2017 & 15542 of 2017 --------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
WP(C) No.34714 of 2019 has been filed by the Managing Director of M/s.Kaipadath Property Development Company Pvt.Ltd. in his personal capacity challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders issued by respondents 2 & 3, purportedly under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act directing the Registrars not to register any documents executed by the petitioner. The orders are issued under the pretext that the petitioner is holding excess land. The facts which led to Exts.P3 & P4 orders would show that proceedings were initiated for determining excess land by taking into account the lands of M/s.Kaipadath Property Development Company Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, together. It is seen from the records that the State Land Board had later clarified that the ceiling proceedings as against the Company has to be dealt with separately. Based on such directions, the ceiling proceedings against the Company has already been taken to its logical end and the excess land held by the company has already been taken possession of. All that remains is whether ceiling proceedings have to be initiated against the Directors personally for the lands held by them. It is seen from the records that though there was direction to separately deal with the lands held by the individual Directors and the Company, no separate ceiling proceedings have so far been initiated against the Directors of the Company. In the absence of ceiling proceedings initiated against the Directors with respect to lands held by them personally, there is no justification for any action being taken under of the . The provision can be invoked if there is a finding regarding any excess land which are held by individuals.
2. In the above circumstances, Exts.P3 & P4 orders, which were issued in 2017, cannot be justified in the light of the completion of the ceiling proceedings against the Company and the absence of ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioner. WP(C) No.34714/2019 is hence allowed. Exts.P3 & P4 are quashed. It is made clear that the State will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 120A , if they propose to initiate any ceiling case against the individual Directors of M/s.Kaipadath Property Development Company Pvt.Ltd.
In the light of orders passed in WP(C) No.34714/2019 quashing Exts.P3 & P4, no further orders are required in WP(C)
Nos.15455 & 15542 of 2017 which were filed for permission to effect transfers. Interim orders issued in these cases are made absolute.
