HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext.P9 notice issued by District Collector, Pathanamthitta under Section 11 of Land Conservancy Act read with Section 86(6) of Kerala Land Reforms Act. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company owned the properties having an extent of 831.52 acres in survey No.545/1 of Aruvapulam village obtained by the predecessor in interest under Ext.P10 registered lease deed of 1911 and under Section 13 of Kerala Land Reforms Act they have fixity of tenure and without affording any opportunity, Ext.P9 notice was issued holding that it is a puramboke land and the period of lease in favour of the petitioner expired on 7/4/2010 and therefore, the petitioner is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the property and directing the petitioner to vacate the land within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice or to show cause, why the petitioner shall not be summarily evicted as per Section 11 of the Land Conservancy Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P10 agreement executed in 1911 establish the lease for a period of 99 years in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, granted by the landlord Kiriyan Kiriyan Pandarathil and even if the period of lease expired, the property can be claimed only by the lessor and not by the Government and in any case, Ext.P9 order issued without affording an opportunity is unsustainable.

(2.) LEARNED Government Pleader filed a statement on behalf of the second respondent contending that documents of title produced are fraudulent and the claim is fraudulent and the property forms part of the property covered in O.P.(C).3502/2011 being heard by this Court and Ext.P9 is valid and cannot be quashed.

(3.) WHEN there is dispute whether the property is puramboke land or the Government land as claimed by the Government or is a private property of the lessor which was demised on the predecessor of the petitioner under Ext.P10 lease agreement, without considering that question, and that too after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, an order under Section 11 of Land Conservancy Act cannot be passed. Ext.P9 establish that no notice as provided under Section 12 of Kerala Land Conservancy Act was served on the petitioner. So also no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to raise the claim or to prove the same before passing Ext.P9 order. In such circumstances, Ext.P9 order can only be quashed.