KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioner, Mr. Kunju Warner, since deceased, and now his legal representatives are seeking to get back possession of 3. 90 acres of land which was taken over in 1944 for the purposes of the Second World war under the Defence of India Act, 1939. On 21-7-1947 the Madras Government gave possession of the property, along with other land to the Metal Industries ltd. , Shornur, on lease. In 1958 the State of Kerala entered into a lease agreement with owners. Rent fell in arrear from the Government to the owners and likewise, the company, which was in the position of a sub-lessee, failed to pay rent to the government, as the company became sick and was declared as such under the kerala Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (Kerala Act 6/62 ). During the period from 1950 to 1971, the State of Madras and then the State of Kerala made various attempts to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but either the proceedings were allowed to lapse or were cancelled.

(2.) SO far as the title of the petitioners, successors of mr. Kunju Warrier, for the property is concerned, the position is this. Originally the property belonged in jenm to Kavalappara Moopil Nayar but there was an outstanding kanom in favour of Mr. Kunju Warrier, the deceased writ petitioner. On the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), the jenm rights of the said Kavalappara Moopil Nayar vested in the State of Kerala while the kanom rights of Mr. Kunju Warrier remained, subject to the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. A point has been raised in the counter affidavits of the State of Kerala and of the company (but not argued)that Mr. Kunj u Warrier, the holder of the kanom rights, had not been in possession when Kerala Act 1/1964 came into force, but that the 2nd respondent company was in possession, and that hence the kanom rights of Mr. Kunju Warrier did not get enlarged.

(3.) THE company (2nd respondent) has raised a contention that it was in possession when the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1/1964)came into force, may be, as lessee of the State of Kerala, and hence, it is entitled to remain in possession under S. 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as a body which had a lease in its favour (though from Government of kerala) for 'commercial or industrial purpose' and as it is claiming to have constructed buildings for such commercial and industrial purposes before 20-5-1967 and is liable only to pay rent, to be varied once in 12 years. This is the other aspect for consideration. Here, a question also arises whether the decision of the Appellate Land Tribunal (Ext. P16) dated 31-8-1984 does not operate as res judicata against the company.