BABU OOMMEN THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is a shareholder of M/s Malabar Produce and Rubber Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') has filed this writ petition inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P16 by which the District Collector, Kozhikode had offered certain extent of land for assignment. He also challenges Exts.P22 and P23 proceedings issued by the Secretary, Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P22 is an order dated 5/10/1996 of the Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram by which orders have been passed to transfer 96.50 Acres of land to CRPF out of 126.01½ acres of excess land and the balance 29.51½ acres in the same village was dereserved and sanction was accorded to assign the land in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. By Ext.P23 dated 27/8/1997, an extent of 96.50 Acres of land in Ravoth village was dereserved and the action of the District Collector in publishing notice inviting application for assignment of 126.01.500 Acres stands ratified. In fact a ceiling case came to be initiated against the Company and as per orders passed by the Taluk Land Board, 126.01.500 Acres of land was taken possession as excess land on 7/4/1989. The contention of the petitioner is that at the instance of political parties, there was large scale trespass into the aforesaid land, which resulted in several proceedings including a suo motu contempt being registered by this Court. By a separate judgment dated 18/12/2019 in CCC.No.1189 of 2000, we have closed the said contempt case.

(2.) The petitioner who is appearing as party in person challenges the aforesaid impugned orders inter alia stating that these lands cannot be assigned to the encroachers and the land taken possession by the Government can be utilized only for public purpose. We do not intend to go into the entire factual aspects involved in the matter as the challenge in the writ petition is only with reference to dereservation of the entire land for the purpose of assignment under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the impugned orders are in violation of the rule of law and that is against the mandate for assignment of land which had been taken possession under the ceiling provisions.

(3.) The facts as disclosed would indicate that the Taluk Land Board issued an order dated 16/9/1976 reserving an extent of 184.53 Acres for a public purpose viz., for establishing a progeny orchard for development of cashew raw nuts by the Department of Agriculture. Later, the Government decided that 96.5 Acres of land surrendered by the Company was required for accommodating the Rapid Action Force Battalion of the Central Reserve Police within the State. However, the said proposal did not fructify. It is thereafter that the trespass had taken place and the land came in the possession of unauthorised persons. There is no doubt about the fact that the State and its authorities were liable to protect the land from encroachment. In fact, the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 clearly indicated that in respect of the land taken possession under Rule 19, Rule 20 or Rule 21, the Tahsildar of the Taluk in which the land is situated has to take prompt and adequate steps to ensure its complete protection from any unauthorised occupation. However, it is apparent that there was failure on the part of the Government and its officers in preventing encroachment and even after a lapse of two decades, the Government was unable to remove the encroachments. In the meantime, the Taluk Land Board had de-reserved the property and the District Collector, who is the competent authority, had issued Ext.P16 proceedings dated 14/7/2009 by which decision had been taken to assign part of the assignable surplus land to 441 eligible occupants out of the initial 885 occupants as per Schedule II. It was observed that in the survey carried out in 2006-07, the land was divided into 985 plots and after assigning 441 eligible occupants, there will be a balance of 544 plots ready for assignment to landless agricultural labourers. It was also found that 330 applicants are found to be in the category of absolute landless and it was decided to assign land to those applicants also in the first phase.