2014 (12) TMI 1332 - HC - Indian Laws

Legality of the ceiling proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - resume possession of about 400 acres of land - lands acquired would be treated as a Development Area - whether the lands in question have been assigned in favour of HMT under the Rules or the Assignment Rules? Held that - Acquiring land for the establishment of a Machine Tool factory is nothing but an acquisition for the purpose of industrial development of an area in the context of Rule 2(d) of the Rules. Also Rule 23 of the Rules empowers the Government to assign land in the Development Areas dispensing with any of the provisions contained in the Rules like Rules 11 or 8. The mere fact that no restriction was made or that no land value was realised does not take the assignment out of the purview of the Rules. So is the case even if the assignment is made dehors an application routed through the Director of Industries and Commerce in the Form in Appendix I to the Rules as envisaged in Rule 5 thereof. It is bewildering as to how the State Government could grant exemption to HMT from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act by virtue of notifications dated 29.7.1991 and 4.7.2000. The notifications were purportedly issued in public interest under Section 81(3) of the Act on account of the land being used for industrial purpose. Exemption for the entire extent was granted by notification dated 29.7.1991 and exemption for the extent of 100 acres was granted by notification dated 4.7.2000. No proceedings could be initiated for the determination of ceiling area when the subject matter of the ceiling case is a Government land whether it be 1.4.1964 or on 1.1.1970. The assignment of Government land in favour of HMT was much after the cut off date and that too under the Rules which itself provide for various contingencies. Whether there are grounds to invoke the power of resumption under Rules 14 and 15 and the modalities thereof under Rules 16 and 17 do not arise for adjudication now. The proceedings being continued on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Kanayannur in M2724/89 against HMT as a holder of excess lands do not have the sanction of law and are to be aborted - The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board directing HMT to surrender 251.40.000 acres as lands held in excess of the ceiling area is hereby set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 against HMT (Machine Tools) Ltd.
2. Validity of the exemptions granted to HMT by the State Government.
3. Determination of whether the lands in question were assigned under the Rules or the Assignment Rules.
4. Applicability of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the lands held by HMT.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Ceiling Proceedings:
The ceiling proceedings against HMT were initially dropped in 1976 based on the exemption claimed as a Central Government undertaking. The case was reopened in 1990 but dropped again when HMT received an exemption by a State Government notification dated 29.7.1991, which required HMT to utilize the land for industrial purposes within four years. However, the State Government noticed that large tracts of land were transferred and kept unutilized, leading to the initiation of proceedings to resume possession of about 400 acres. HMT challenged this in O.P.No.19718/1995 but later withdrew the petition after handing over 300 acres to KINFRA. The Taluk Land Board reopened the case in 2002, calling upon HMT to surrender excess land.

2. Validity of the Exemptions Granted:
The exemptions granted to HMT by notifications dated 29.7.1991 and 4.7.2000 were purportedly issued in public interest under Section 81(3) of the Act. However, Section 81 falling under Chapter III of the Act does not apply to lands owned or held by the Government of Kerala. The lands held by HMT were Government lands until assigned by Patta dated 30.10.1973. The court concluded that the exemptions granted were invalid as Chapter III of the Act does not apply to Government lands, making the notifications non est in law.

3. Assignment under the Rules or the Assignment Rules:
The lands were assigned to HMT under the Rules for the Assignment of Government Lands in Development Areas for Industrial Purposes, not the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The Assignment Rules are primarily for cultivation and do not favor industrial purposes, whereas the Rules provide for assignment for industrial purposes and allow the land to be heritable and alienable. The court concluded that the assignment in favor of HMT was under the Rules, supported by Government Orders and the form of Patta issued.

4. Applicability of the Kerala Land Reforms Act:
The court examined whether the lands in question were Government lands as on the relevant dates (1.1.1964 or 1.1.1970). Since the lands were Government lands on 1.4.1964, the provisions of Section 81 of the Act did not apply. Therefore, no proceedings could be initiated for determining the ceiling area for these lands. The court held that the balance extent of 3.02.683 acres of land was within the ceiling limit, and the proceedings against HMT were without legal sanction.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board directing HMT to surrender 251.40.000 acres as excess land. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the proceedings on the file of the Taluk Land Board were aborted, as they lacked the sanction of law.