MADHAVA PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is by a partnership firm called 'madhava Pharmaceutical Laboratories' against the order of the Taluk land Board, Ottappalam directing the firm to surrender 190. 76 Acres as excess land in its possession.

(2.) THE Taluk Land Board initiated proceedings against the firm for surrender of excess land as per a draft statement dated 25-7-1979 served on the Managing partner of the firm. THE draft statement shows the total extent of land held by the firm as 198. 30 Acres, out of which an extent of 33. 38 Acres was exempted under S. 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and an extent of 7. 50 Acres was shown as the ceiling area applicable to the firm under S. 82 (5) of the Act. THE firm was directed to surrender 157. 42 Acres as excess land in its possession.

(3.) EXT. P2 dated 1-1-1970 is the document reconstituting the firm the 'madhava Pharmaceutical Laboratories'. The document shows that executant Nos. 1 to 3 had been carrying on a partnership business in the name of madhava Pharmaceutical Laboratories as per a partnership deed dated 20-12-1968. The firm is reconstituted by taking in executant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 also as partners of the firm. The object of the reconstituted firm is said to be the "manufacture and distribution of Ayurvedic Medicines as hitherto fore, to dispense medicines to the visiting patients in the dispensary on prescriptions issued by party No. 1 who is a registered Medical Practitioner and to develop the Herbarium in the manner described in the preamble to this deed and other ancilliary activities, relating to Ayurvedic system of medicines". The preamble refers to a herbarium where medicinal plants are cultivated for use in the manufacturing process of the firm. EXT. P1 dated 20-6-1978 is the order of the Forest Tribunal, Palghat in O. A. No. 34 of 1975. EXT. P1 order shows that an extent of 105. 14 Acres described in schedule 'c' was exempted from vesting in the Government under Act 26/1971 as a herbarium where medicinal plants are cultivated. The Taluk Land Board in the impugned order adverts to the order of the Forest Tribunal only to state that the 115 Acres of land shown as vested forest had not been taken into account in these proceedings. It has not considered the claim for exemption of 105. 14 acres of land held for use for the industrial and commercial purpose of the undertaking. In the light of EXT. P1 proceedings of the Forest Tribunal to which the Government is a party, we are inclined to accept the contention that the extent of 105. 14 acres described in schedule 'c' of EXT. P1 order is land set up for use as herbarium for the industrial and commercial ' purpose of the firm. We also hold that the firm is an industrial and commercial undertaking and the aforesaid extent of 105. 14 acres is liable to be exempted under S. 81 (1) (k) of the K. L. R. Act. The proviso to the said clause empowers the Collector to take proceedings against the firm for cancellation of the exemption if the land set apart for use for the industrial and commercial purpose of the undertaking is not actually used for those purposes. Viswanatha Iyer, J. in Ali v. State of Kerala (1976 K. L. T. Short Notes 45) construing the provisions of S. 81 (1) (k) of the Act stated thus: "it is not necessary that the entire extent held by the company should have been actually used for the industrial and commercial purpose. The clause only requires that to claim exemption the land must be set apart by the industrial and commercial undertaking for use for the industrial or commercial purpose of the undertaking. The proviso makes the meaning of the clause very clear. The proviso provides for cancellation of the exemption if such land is not actually used for the purpose of which it is set apart within such time as the District Collector may, by notice specify in that behalf. The district Collector should require the company to use the land for the purpose within a specified time. Until such intimation is given to the Company it is not necessary that the company should actually use the land for the purpose. It need have only set apart the land for such purpose". We respectfully agree with the above view expressed by the learned judge in regard to the interpretation of S. 81 (1) (k) of the Act. The taluk Land Board had in its draft statement proposed an exemption of 33. 38 acres as falling under S. 81 (1) (k) of the Act. Even that exemption is not acceded to in passing the order. The withdrawal of the exemption proposed without notice to the declarant is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice: Since, however, we have found that the firm is entitled to exemption of 105. 14 acres of land under S. 81 (1) (k) of the Act, it has become unnecessary to remand the case to the Taluk Land Board to afford the firm an opportunity to make out a case for withdrawal of exemption proposed under the draft statement.