HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Indian Company to which was amalgamated a foreign Company, whether could hold and enjoy the lands that devolved on them by virtue of the amalgamation; when the foreign Company could not have continued holding such lands after India got independence is the essential question raised in these batch of writ petitions, which challenge proceedings for eviction by State, inter alia 'alleging fraud, forgery and collusion. The Company, Harrisons Malayalam Limited (for brevity "HML") is the petitioner in W. P. (C) Nos. 7711/2013, 33122/2014 and 8437/2016. The assignees of HML, Gospel For Asia ("GFA"), [W. P. (C) 1386 & 14913 of 2013, 5510 & 10640 of 2015 and W. As. 239 & 240 of 2016], Boyce Rubber Estates Pvt. Ltd. ("BRE") [W. P. (C)11598/2015 & W. A. 198/2016], Riya Resorts & Properties Pvt. Ltd. ("RRP") [W. P. (C)10320/2015], The Travancore Rubber & Tea Company Ltd. (TR & T) [W. P. (C)10962/2015] are the petitioners and appellants in the cases noted against each of them in brackets.

(2.) Hml and its assignees together assert their right to hold the lands absolutely on the basis of title or lease traced back to individuals and the Princely State of Travancore as obtained by the foreign Company, the uninterrupted possession over a century and the revenue records which disclose them to be the owners paying land tax on their respective holdings. The State, at first had been attempting to take over a small extent, out of the larger totaling thousands of acres, under the Kerala Land Reforms, Act, 1963 (the KLR Act) to the extent it exceeds the ceiling limit and is not covered by the exemptions to plantations. Subsequently on other grounds of escheat, lapse and bona vacantia the State seeks to take over the entire extents. The petitioners bow only to the ceiling proceedings under the KLR Act and allege the other proceedings, especially the one under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [for brevity "KLC Act"] which is challenged herein; being without jurisdiction, high handed and in violation of their right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The State; which asserts that the petitioners are in occupation of Government land, recovery of which is permitted under the KLC Act, seeks to neutralize the title and long possession on the plank of the same having been enabled by fraud. Two prominent politicians and other public spirited individuals render support to the State and exhorts this Court to keep the larger public interest in mind when dealing with the allegation of large tracts of land being in illegal possession of a Company; owing allegiance to a foreign Company, when there are numerous landless, deprived people within the State.

(3.) We have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. V. Vishwanathan instructed by Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar for HML, learned Senior Counsel Sri. R. D. Shenoi and Sri. Harin P. Raval instructed by Sri. P. Haridas for GFA, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Joseph Kodianthara instructed by Sri. Abraham Markos for TR & T and Sri. C. P. Mohammed Nias for BRE. Arguments on behalf of the State were addressed by learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jaideep Gupta instructed by Special Government Pleader Sri. S. B. Premachandra Prabhu. The party respondents who got themselves impleaded were represented by Sri. R. Krishna Raj and Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj.