HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first three among the captioned matters are filed by the Hindustan Lever Ltd. - (Hindustan Unilever Ltd.), hereinafter, "HLL", for short. According to it, by a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the High Court of Bombay and later confirmed by the Apex Court, Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd., for short, TOMCO, was taken over by it.

(2.) TOMCO was in possession of an item of land in Kanayannur Taluk of Ernakulam Village. With the passage of time, HLL claimed to be its owner by succession on the basis of the aforesaid scheme of amalgamation and proceeded to put that piece to use for the purpose of a housing scheme. Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. was involved in that process. It appears that there was hue and cry from some quarters as regards that: Apparently, certain allegations were also raised to the effect that TOMCO and HLL are putting the land to such user as wouldn't be permissible in terms of the transaction under which TOMCO came into possession of that land. Incidentally, there were also certain allegations that land in excess of that which was originally held by TOMCO, is also encroached upon by TOMCO and HLL. Allegations against TOMCO and HLL in this regard appear to have been brought to the notice of the Petition Committee of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. Stated to be acting on the instructions, advice or aegis of that committee, government officials initiated actions, allegedly, in violation of the laws or, allegedly, in failure to act in terms of the relevant statutory provisions. Those accused of such commissions and omissions included officers, allegedly with no jurisdiction, as also different statutory authorities having jurisdiction under the different provisions of laws relating to lands in Kerala and the registering authorities under the Registration Act. They initiated different actions by issuance of notices and also commenced refusing to accede to the request of HLL and persons claiming under it to register documents and to record transactions in relation to parts of the aforesaid land. That situation led to the institution of W.P.(C) No. 2445 of 2004, which was decided on 25th of August 2006. That was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA No. 233 of 2007. It is stated that the said matter was taken before the Apex Court and there, it is clarified that the findings in the judgments of the High Court were rendered only for the purpose of holding that the authorities under the Registration Act did not act in conformity with the statutory jurisdictions under that legislation and the observations made by the High Court in those judgments cannot be treated as decisive as regards the title to property as claimed by HLL.

(3.) The pleadings in these Writ Petitions abundantly indicate that there is clear conflict and dispute on fundamental questions of facts which arise in relation to the holding of the land by TOMCO and HLL. While they stand to assert absolute title to the property in question, the Government and the revenue authorities, as also, the Corporation of Kochi refute that, in as much as, what was granted to TOMCO was a lease for an industrial purpose, the terms of which, according to the Government, have been flouted. The project or proposal to put that property to use for housing, is away from the industrial purpose for which the lease was granted, contends the Government. The materials on record al so do not show that the scheme of amalgamation between TOMCO and HLL, as stated to have been approved by the High Court of Bombay, was issued with the Government of Kerala on the party array and after having afforded it an opportunity of being heard. Whatever is its entitlement to be heard in relation to those proceedings; that may not be irrelevant, if what TOMCO got initially was only a lease and not such title which was left exclusively to the volition of TOMCO or its successor HLL to deal with. Any assertion by the Government and other statutory authorities that there is violation of the terms of the lease or the quality of the grant Or transfer in favour of TOMCO has to be raised appropriately in lawful proceedings in terms of the laws, since otherwise, neither TOMCO nor any person including HLL claiming under it, either on the basis of the amalgamation scheme or otherwise, would have the appropriate opportunity in accordance with law to meet any such plea or charge and protect their interests in terms of Articles 14, 19, 300A and 301 of the Constitution, as also in terms of the statute laws that would govern such proceeding. This, in essence, is the rationale of this Court's view in W. A. No. 233 of 2007 and W.P.(C) No. 2445 of 2004, from which that appeal arose, even if those judgments were to be read as not deciding inter se any issue as to title to property.