9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pot and the Kerala State Electricity Board and that vast area was kept unutilised by HMT. Proceedings were therefore initiated to resume possession of about 400 acres of land which was challenged by HMT in O.P.No.19718/1995 on the file of this Court. Later the writ petition was withdrawn when HMT handed over 300 acres of land to KINFRA (The Kerala State Industrial Infra Structure Development Corporation). This was on the request of the State Government who issued the notification G.O (MS) No.207/2000 dated 4.7.2000 granting exemption from the Act in respect of 100 acres of land held by HMT. The ceiling case was later re-opened in the year 2002 by the Taluk Land Board, Kanayannur calling upon HMT to surrender lands allegedly held by it in excess of the ceiling area. 3. The authorised officer deputed by the Taluk Land Board under Section 105A of the Act reported that an extent of 251.40.000 acres of land is held by HMT as in excess and liable to be surrendered. It was also reported that 240 acres in R.S.No.321/1 and 60 acres in R.S.No.321/1 had been handed over to KINFRA and Cooperative Academy of Education respectively. HMT filed an objection to the report of the authorised officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Amicus Curiae who ably assisted this Court by referring to the several Government orders and elaborating on the implications of the various statutory provisions in the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. 6. The Special Government Pleader produced the entire files since I wanted to know the genesis of the title of the land held by HMT against which proceedings under the Act are initiated. The records reveal that the Government of India requested the State Government for providing 900 acres of land to establish a Machine Tool factory as per the third five year plan. The State Government by GO (MS) No.327/63/Ind dated 9.4.1963 accorded sanction for the acquisition of 900 acres of land at Kalamassery for the establishment of a Machine Tool factory in the Central Sector. The State Government by GO (MS) NO.505/64/Ind dated 31.7.1964 specified the nature of assignment of the land earlier sanctioned to be acquired as follows:- "3. Government have carefully considered the matter and are pleased to order that the area sanctioned to be acquired for the Machine Tools Factory at Kalamassery will, after the acquisition is completed, be treated as a "Development Area" as contemplated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47.37.400 acres in Aluva Village which also specifies that the land is heritable and alienable. It is reported that only a minuscule extent of 3.02.683 acres in Vazhakkala Village alone was the private acquisition of HMT after the assignment under the Rules. The Rules are framed under Section 7 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 ('the Assignment Act' for short) governing assignment of Government land. As many as 18 Rules including the Rules and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 ('the Assignment Rules' for short) have been so framed. Section 3 of the Assignment Act enables the Government land to be assigned by the Government or by any prescribed authority either absolutely or subject to conditions. 9. One of the issues that arise for consideration is as to whether the lands in question have been assigned in favour of HMT under the Rules or the Assignment Rules. The assignment under the Assignment Rules is principally for cultivation and not more than 50 cents of land (whether wet or dry) in the plains could be assigned under Rule 5(1)(a) thereof. The Assignment Rules do not give any preference to assignment for industrial purposes and about 748 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The decision in WP (C) No.8172 of 2008 [ILR 2009 (3) Kerala 695] in so far as it holds that the assignment is under the Assignment Rules is without reference to Rule 23 of the Rules. I am emboldened to take this view in view of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 8.1.2010 and also the scheme of the Rules. 11. 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. But Section 81 falling under Chapter III of the Act does not apply to the lands owned or held by the Government of Kerala as is evident from Explanation (1) thereto. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dity in the eye of law when Chapter III of the Act does not apply and the notifications relied on are non est in law. 12. 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 alleged transferees of parcels of land from HMT may have to be put on notice and heard before orders if any are required to be passed by the authorities. It is obvious that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the area covered by the two pattas and the balance extent of 3.02.683 acres of land is well within the ceiling limit. Therefore 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 Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
