HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE batch of Writ Petitions raise common questions and hence they are disposed of by this common Judgment. All the petitioners seek a writ of mandamusS., rder or direction in the nature thereof, directing the official respondents to provide police protection to them to ward off encroachments on their properties.

(2.) THE petitioner is an elected Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly from Kalpetta. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a planter. THE present Wayanad District and other parts formerly constituting the erstwhile Malabar area were under the administration and management of the Madras Government. During 1940, the Madras Government formulated a scheme, called more food campaign to encourage the people to cultivate more lands. THE grandfather of the petitioner, a cultivator was approached by the concerned Officials offering to give the property in the possession of the petitioner herein for improving and converting the same into an agricultural land. THEse lands were handed over in the year 1940 and were improved and converted into an excellent garden land consisting of various fruit bearing trees. During 1958, there was an assessment and levy of additional land revenue under the Madras Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1954. Ext.P3 is the copy of the Registration Certificate in favour of the petitioner's grandfather. THEre is a partition by the grandfather and the property was allotted to the share of his father, Shri M. P. Veerendrakumar who is a former Minister. Petitioner's father also paid tax under the Kerala Plantation Additional Tax Act, 1950. THEre is reference to a Partition Deed No. 1639 of 1972 by which there was a partition among the members of the branch of the petitioner's father (Ext.P5). From the date of the Partition Deed, the property is in the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has improved the property further, paid taxes and other dues to the Government. It is stated that in regard to the present property, petitioner has requested for assignment which is not granted. THEre is also reference to the petitioner being in possession of land of about 48.18 Acres with lands lying adjacent to the present property. It is alleged that the petitioner moved a Review Petition before the Minister for Revenue which is pending consideration, and the matter has not attained finality. Petitioner filed OS.No.142 of 2007 for declaration of title and injunction. Ext.P6 is the interim order passed. Still further, there is reference to the relationship between the petitioner and his father and a section of the leadership of the LDF becoming strained due to political developments. It is alleged that a demand emanated from the local activists of the CPI (M) that the land in possession of the petitioner and his father should be dispossessed and distributed among the adivasis. It is stated that the petitioner and his father had to leave the LDF along with his entire party, Janata Dal (S). His detractors incited the adivasis to move this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3195 of 2007 seeking re-possession of the land in the possession of the petitioner. That Writ Petition was dismissed. Against that, Writ Appeal No.348 of 2008 was filed. Without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it was disposed of directing the official respondents to take effective steps to re-possess the land if the petitioner is in illegal possession. Petitioner filed a Review Petition. It was alleged further that the Local Secretary of the CPI (M) and the M.L.A. representing Sulthan Bathery Constituency, suddenly, started a movement clamouring that the land which is the subject matter of a civil suit and the Review Petition before this Court be handed over to adivasis for erection of huts and a march was held to seize the land by force. THEre are allegations against the District Collector in regard to the installation of a Board showing that the property is Government property for assigning to adivasis in terms of the Judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.348 of 2008.

(3.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: They are co-owners in possession of coco plantation having an extent of 26.305 hectares equivalent to 65 acres in Wayanad District. They had acquired the jenm right over a property having an extent of 47.5610 hectares under Ext.P1 Assignment Deed No.3357 of 1999. Thereafter, the leasehold rights of the lessee, namely M/s. Cadbury India Limited was surrendered orally in favour of the petitioners and followed by Ext.P2 document. In Writ Petition No.4642 of 2010, the Land Board Order is produced to show that the aforesaid property of coco plantation is exempted by the Taluk Land Board. 20.2500 hectares came to be acquired by the Government for KINFRA in the year 2000. Ext.P4 is the Award. There was a reference to the Sub Court in the matter of compensation. Ext.P5 is the Award. Petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4642 of 2010 was elected to the Wayanad District Panchayat on the party ticket of Janata Dal. Janata Dal was associated with CPI(M). Petitioner was elected as the Chairman of a Standing Committee. In 2009, following a political re-alignment, Janata Dal supported the United Democratic Front, which is in opposition to the LDF. With the support of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4642 of 2010 whose stand was of critical importance, the UDF has gained control of the Panchayat, dislodging the Sitting President and Vice President of the Panchayat and the petitioner was elected as the New Vice President. Consequently, the ruling CPI(M) is antagonist to the petitioner. Government has charged a false case of under-valuation which is pending consideration in a Writ Petition. Thereafter, allegations are raised against respondents 6 and 7 that they have manipulated the fifth respondent and managed a forcible entry by members of the fifth respondent in the property of the Sitting M.L.A. Shri M. V. Sreyams Kumar (petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4545 of 2010). Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 complaint. It is alleged that some members of the adivasis were egged on and headed by respondents 5 to 7 and on 8.2.2010, they forcibly entered into a portion of the property and destroyed a few coco plants and attempted construction of katcha huts. Petitioner has approached the respondents. Counter Affidavits have been filed by respondents 2 to 4. They are the Superintendent of Police, Wayanad; the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalpetta and Sub Inspector of Police, Kalpetta. It is, inter alia, stated as follows: Petitioner is in possession along with his other co-owners 65 acres of land in Survey No.2661 of Kalpetta Village and that part of the land has been acquired for KINFRA. There is also reference to the allegation of under-valuation and a dispute between the petitioner and the Government in regard to the land. There is reference to a vigilance case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also stated that the proprietory rights of the petitioner and other co-owners are also in dispute, since according to the Government, the alleged title is bad, as it is hit by the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. There is reference to the fourth respondent receiving the petition from the petitioner and other co-owners. It is stated that the fourth respondent along with eleven police men then readily available, rushed to the spot and found some AKS workers numbering about 150 including women and children gathered here and there as groups along with road side adjacent to the boundary of the petitioner's property and shouting slogans. On seeing the police party, the assembled groups further spread and entered into the land of the petitioner and other co-owners who were not having any fencing before the police could do anything. The police party are stated to be out-numbered. The persons shouted slogans and erected blocks. The available police force were not enough to remove the mob numbering about 150. Fourth respondent informed the higher Officer. Third respondent reached the spot with re- inforcement. With that re-inforcement, the force was insufficient to remove the agitators. But, it is stated that later, eighteen persons were removed. They got a Report from the Special Branch of the local area that the adivasis are preparing for resistance with the police and further removal at that dusk time may lead to serious law and order problem as the agitating adivasis including women and children may sustain causalities. On the next day (9.2.2010), the entire police force was on duty in connection with the eviction from the subject matter in W.P.(C).No.4545 of 2010. Some more adivasis also forcibly entered into the estate land through the interior pathways and thus, the number increased about 350, in regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.4642 of 2010. The adivasis forcibly entered were remaining there and living according to their life style, using the waste wood as firewood for cooking food. Petitioner has represented this matter as destruction of property. It is stated that the persons cleaned some bush growths and some small waste of the trees which were cut.