Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.283 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 28496/2016 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2019 IN WP(C) 28496/2016(S) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/S: 1 C.KRISHNAN NAIR, KINALUR ESTATE P.O., KINALUR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 612.
2 PUDUPPADI - THAMARASSERY AREA ESTATE WORKERS UNION, A.K.G.MANDIRAM, THAMARASSERY P.O., PIN - 673 573. 3 KINALUR ESTATE LABOUR UNION (TUCI), STATE PRESIDENT, PUTHUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR, PIN- 680 610. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 ONE EARTH ONE LIFE, (REG.NO.S.246/1988), THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY MR.TONY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, IRUMBAKACHOLA, KANJIRAPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. connected cases ..2.. 4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 6 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
7 THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDI - 673 001. 8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 9 THE SUB REGISTRAR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
11 M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD., BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 12 JOSE KYNADI, S/O.JOSEPH JACOB, KUTTANAD HOUSE, BANK ROAD, CALICUT - 673 001. 13 P.K.ANWAR, S/O.LATE P.K.C.AHAMMEDKUTTY, PARAKANDY, UNNIKULAM POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 574. 14 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, MUKKAM P.O., KARASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 602. 15 KOZHIKODE ZILLA ESTATE MAZDOOR SANGH BMS, , REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, BMS OFFICE, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 16 ABDUL BASHEER M.P.,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, RESIDING AT MURIYUMPURAYIL HOUSE, POST TACHEMPOIL, KOZHIKODE - 673 573.
connected cases ..3.. 17 M.K.THANKAPPAN, S/O.LATE KUTTAN, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, KORATTY P.O., J.T.S.ROAD, THRISSUR. 18 N.V.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, NEELANCHERIVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.THALAYAD - 673 574. 19 P.T.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI HAJI, PALLITHODUKAYIL HOUSE, P.O.THAMARASSERY - 673 573.
20 N.M.MUSTHAFA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, NETTAMPARACHALIL HOUSE, P.O.THALAYAD - 673 574. 21 P.O.SKARIA, AGED 57 YEARS, PARAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.THAMARASSERY - 673 573. 22 MATHEW AUGUSTINE, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, MUKKALADUIL HOUSE, P.O.M.M.PARAMB - 673 574. 23 K.M.MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE, P.O.NILAMBUR - 673 330. 24 V.M.JOHN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH MARKOSE, VALAYIL HOUSE, P.O.THAMARASSERY - 673 573. 25 P.T.BHARATHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PONNUMTHORAMMAL HOUSE, P.O.M.M.PARAMB - 673 574.
26 K.K.NAZARUDHEEN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR, PANAKKAL PARAMB, ASR COTTAGE, P.O.PUTHIYANGADI - 673 021. 27 ASSAINAR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MOIDY, PANAKKAL PARAMB, A.S.R.COTTAGE P.O., PUTHIYANGADI - 673 021. connected cases ..4.. 28 N.M.FATHIMA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.KUNHAMMED, PANAKKAL PARAMBA, P.O.PUTHIYANGADI - 673 021. 29 K.A.ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.AMMAD, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, P.O.EKAROOL - 673 302. 30 K.T.MOHAMMED, P.O.H. OF K.T.GAFOOR, AGED 46 YERS, S/O.K.T.MOHAMMED, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, P.O.M.M.PARAMB - 673 574.
31 SURESH THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS M.J., SURESH BHAVAN, P.O.KUTTIPPARA - 673 573. 32 M.SASEENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARA KURUP, CHEVIDAMPOYIL HOUSE, P.O.M.M.PARAMB - 673 574. 33 A.ACHUKUTTY NAIR, AGED 85 YEARS, S/O.RAMANNAIR, THAMARAMANGALAM HOUSE, P.O.KARUMALA- 673 612. 34 C.T.FRANCIS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, P.O.ATHIYODI - 673 527. 35 BINDU FRANCIS, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.ANTONY, CHETIPUZHA HOUSE, P.O.ATHIYODI - 673 527. 36 K.V.JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, KUMPALOLIL, WHITE HOUSE, P.O.NADAKKAVU - 673 011.
37 BIJU THOMAS, S/O.G.M.THOMAS, AGED 48, GANAPATHY PLAKKAL HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM P.O., KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 38 PRIYANKA TRACY GILROY, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. connected cases ..5..
39 MELIZA CRISS GILROY, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 40 SYNABA, W/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, PAYYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 574.
41 ABDUL HAKKIM M., S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI M., MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 574. 42 RASEENA, W/O.ABDUL HAKKIM, MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 574. 43 K.P.RAVINDRAN, KOTTUPUTHIYOTTIL, CHERUVATHUKANDI, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT A/203, SURYA CHS PAREKH NAGAR, DALLAY ROAD, PASHAL PADA, KURAD VILLAGE, MALAD EAST MUMBAI. 44 SHYAMALA RAJAN, D/O.KUMARAN, CHERUVATHUKANDI, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR TRIVENI NAGAR, A/303 PAREKH NAGAR, KURAR VILLAGE, MALAD (EAST), MUMBAI. 45 JOSE MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW,KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE, NARIYANANI P.O., ELAMKULAM DESOM, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 506.
46 MUJEEB, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.ABDUE HAJI, ERUMBATH HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 324. R11 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R11 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH ADDL.A.G SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN AND SR.GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-072019, ALONG WITH RP. 367/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: connected cases ..6..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.367 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 28496/2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2019 IN WP(C) 28496/2016(S) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 ABDUL BASHEER M.P., AGED 44 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM HAJI, RESIDING AT MURIYUMPURAYIL HOUSE, POST TACHEMPOIL, KOZHIKODE-673573. 2 BIJU THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS GANAPATHY PLAKKAL HOUSE, ASOKAPURAM P.O, KASABA VILLAGE, KZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT-673011. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT/S:
1 ONE EARTH ONE LIFE (REG.NO.246/1988) THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY MR. TONY THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, IRUMBAKACHOLA, KANJIRAPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. connected cases ..7.. 3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 7 THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDI-673001. 8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673001. 9 THE SUB REGISTRAR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673001. 10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673001. 11 M/S. COCHION MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND,KOCHI-682003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 12 C.KRISHNAN NAIR, KINALUR ESTATE P.O, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612. 13 JOSE KYNADI, S/O. JOSEPH JACOB, KUTTANAD HOUSE, BANK ROAD, CALICUT-673001. 14 P.K. ANWAR, S/O. (LATE), P.K.C. AHAMMEDKUTTY, PARAKANDY, UNNIKULAM POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673574. 15 PUDUPPADI-THAMARASSERY AREA ESTATE WORKERS UNION, A.K.G. MANDIRAM, THAMARASSERY P.O, PIN-673573. connected cases ..8.. 16 KINALUR ESTATE LABOUR UNION (TUCI) STATE PRESIDENT, PUTHUKKAD P.O, THRISSUR-680610
17 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ESTATE LABUR CONGRESS, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, MUKKAM P.O., KARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673602, 18 KOZHIKODE ZILLA ESTATE MAZDOOR SANGH BMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BMS OFFICE, KALLAYI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. 19 M.K. THANKAPPAN, S/O. (LATE) KUTTAN, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, KORATTY P.O, J.T.S. ROAD, THRISSUR. 20 N.V ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN, NEELANCHERIVEETTIL, P.O, THALAYAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673574. 21 P.T. ABDUL LATHEEF,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI HAJI, PALLITHODUKAYIL HOUSE, P.O. THAMARASSERY-673573.
22 N.M. MUSTHAFA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, NETTAMPARCHALIL HOUSE, P.O, THALAYAD-673574. 23 P.O. SKARIA, AGED 56 YEARS, PARAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.THAMARASSERY-673573. 24 MATHEW AUGUSTINE, AGED 66, S/O. AUGUSTINE, MUKKALADUIL HOUSE, P.O.M.M. PARAMB-673574. 25 K.M. MATHEW, AGED 56, S/O. MATHEW, KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE, P.O. NILAMBUR-673330. 26 V.M. JOHN, AGED 68, S/O. OUSEPH MARKOSE, VALAYIL HOUSE, P.O.THAMARASSERY-673573. 27 P.T BHARATHAN, AGED 59, S/O. AYYAPPAN, PONNUMTHORAMMAL HOUSE, P.O. M.M. PARAMB-673574.
28 K.K. NAZARUDHEEN, AGED 27, S/O. ASSAINAR, PANAKKAL PARAMB, ASR COTTAGE, P.O. PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE-673021. connected cases ..9.. 29 ASSAINAR, AGED 59, S/O. MOIDY, PANAKKAL PARAMB, ASR COTTAGE, P.O. PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE-673021. 30 N.M. FATHIMA, AGED 49, D/O.KUNHAMMED, PANAKKAL PARAMB, P.O. PUTHIYANGADI-673021. 31 K.A. ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 48, S/O.AMMAD, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, P.O. EKAROOL-673302. 32 K.T. MOHAMMED, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF K.T GAFOOR, AGED 45 , S/O.K.T. MOHAMMED, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, P.O.M.M. PARAMB-673573.
33 SURESH THOMAS, AGED 45, S/O. THOMAS M.J, SURESH BHAVAN, P.O. KUTTIPPARA-673573. 34 M. SASEENDRAN, AGED 60, S/O. DAMODARA KURUP, CHEVIDAMPOYIL HOUSE, P.O. M.M. PARAMB-673574. 35 A. ACHUKUTTY NAIR, AGED 85, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, THAMARAMANGALAM HOUSE, P.O. KARUMALA-673612. 36 C.T. FRANCIS, AGED 46, S/O. THOMAS, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, P.O, ATHIYODI-673527. 37 BINDU FRANCIS, AGED 40, D/O. ANTONY, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, P.O. ATHIYODI-673527. 38 K.V. JOSEPH, AGED 67, S/O. VARKEY, KUMPALOLIL, WHITE HOUSE, P.O. NADAKKAVAU-673011
39 PRIYANKA TRACY GILROY, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 40 MELIZA CRISS GILORY, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. ANTONY GILORY GEORGE, MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, AGED 63, S/O.(LATE) MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE,
connected cases ..10.. RESIDING AT MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 41 SYNABA W/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, PAYYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O, UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673574. 42 ABDUL HAKKIM M, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI M, MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O. UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673574. 43 RASEENA, W/O. ABDUL HAKKIM, MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O, UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673574.
44 K.P. RAVINDRAN, KOTTUPUTHIYOTTIL, CHERUVATHUKANDI, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT A/203, SURYA CHS PAREKH NAGAR, DALLARY ROAD, PASHAL PADA, KURAD VILLAGE, MALAD EAST, MUMBAI. 45 SHYAMALA RAJAN, D/O. KUMARAN, CHERUVATHUKANDI, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR-TRIVENI NAGAR, A/303 PAREKH NAGAR, KURAD VILLAGE, MALAD EAST, MUMBAI.
46 JOSE MATHEW, AGED 53, S/O. MATHEW, KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE, NARIYANANI P.O, ELAMKULAM DESOM, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686506. 47 MUJEEB, AGED 42, S/O. ABDUE HAJI, ERUMBATH HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA P.O, PERINTHALAMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679324. R11 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R11 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH ADDL.A.G SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN AND SR.GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-072019, ALONG WITH RP.283/2019, AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: connected cases ..11..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.420 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 28496/2016 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2019 IN WP(C) REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 JOSE MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE NARIYANANI P.O., ELAMKULAM DESOM KANJIRAPPALLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 506. 2 MUJEEB, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. ABDUE HAJI, ERUMBATH HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA P.O., PERINTHALNANA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 324. BY ADVS. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.) SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH SRI.P.K.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/S:
1 ONE EARTH ONE LIFE REG.NO. S246/1988 THRISSUR . REPRESENTED BY MR. TONY THOMAS S/O. THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, IRUMBAKACHOLA KANJIRAPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 595. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT connected cases ..12.. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 6 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAW , SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 7 THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYALANDI 673 001. 8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 9 THE SUB REGISTRAR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, THAMARASSERY KOZHIKODE 673 001. 11 M/S. COCHIN MALABAR ESTATE AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED., BRISTOW ROAD WILLINGDON ISLAND KOCHI 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 12 C.KRISHNAN NAIR, KINALUR ESTATE P.O., KINALUR BALUSSERY KOZHIKODE 673 612. 13 JOSE KYNADI, S/O. JOSEPH JACOB, KUTTTANAD HOUSE BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 14 P.K. ANWAR, S/O. LATE P.K.C AHMMEDKUTTY PARAKANDY UNNIKULAM POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 574. 15 PUDUPPADI-THAMARASSERY AREA ESTATE WORKERS UNION A.K.G MANDIRAM, THAMARASSERY P.O., 673 573. 16 KINALUR ESTATE LABOUR UNION TUCI, STATE PRESIDENT PUTHUKKAD .O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 610.
connected cases ..13.. 17 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS DISTRICT PRESIDENT MUKKAM P.O., KARASSERY 673 602. 18 KOZHIKODE ZILLA ESTATE MAZADOOR SANGH BMS, REPRESENTED BY TIS GENERAL SECRETARY BMS OFFICE, KALLAYI ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 19 ABDUL BASHEER M.P., AGED 44 YEARS S/O. IBHARIM HAJI, RESIDING AT MURIYUMPURAYYI HOUSE, POST THACHAMPOYIL, KOZHIKODE 673 573.
20 M.K. THANKAPPAN,S/O. LATE KUTTAN, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, KORATTY P.O., J.T.S. ROAD, THRISSUR 680 308. 21 N.V. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN, NEELANCHERIVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O. THALAYAD 673 574. 22 P.T. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEDN KUNH HAJI, P.O., THAMARASSERY 673 573,. 23 N.M. MUSTHAFA,AGED 42 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, NETTAMPARCHALIL HOUSE, P.O. TALAYAD 673 574. 24 P.O. SKARIA, AGED 56 YEARS PARAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O., THAMARASSERY 673 573. 25 MATHEW AUGUSTINE, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. AUGUSTINE, MUKKALADUIL HOUSE, P.O., M.M. PARAMB 673 574. 26 K.M. MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE, P.O., NILAMBUR 673 330.
27 V.M. JOHN, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. OUSEPH MARKOSE VALAYIL HOUSE, P.O., THAMARASSERRY 673 573. 28 P.T. BHARATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, PONNUMTHORAMMAL HOUSE P.O. M.M. PARAMB 673 574. connected cases ..14.. 29 K.K. NAZARUDHEEN, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. ASSAINAR, PANAKKAL PARAMB, ASR COTTAGE, P.O., PUTHIYANGADI 673 021 30 ASSAINAR, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. MOIDY, PANAKKL PARAMB P.O, PUTHIYANGADI 673 021 31 N.M. FATHIMA, AGED 49 YEARS D/O. KUNHAMMED PANAKKAL PARAMB P.O., PUTHIYANGADI 673 021. 32 K.A. ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. AMMAD, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE P.O., EKAROOL 673 302. 33 K.T. MOHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS P.O. H. OF K.T. MOHAMMED KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, P.O., M.M. PARAMB 673 574.
34 SURESH THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. THOMAS M.J. SURESH BHAVAN, P.O., KUTTIPPARA 673 573. 35 M. SASEENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. DAMODRA KURUP, CHEVIDAMPOYIL HOUSE P.O. M.M. PARAMB 673 574. 36 A. ACHUKUTTY NAIR, AGED 85 YEARS S/O. RAMAN NAIR, THMARAMANGALAM HOUSE, P.O. KURUMALA 673 612. 37 C.T. FRANCIS,AGED 46 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, P.O., ATHIYOOI 673 527. 38 BINDU FRANCIS, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. ANTONY, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE P.O., ATHIYOOR 673 527.
39 K.V. JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. VARKEY KUMPALOLIL WHITE HOUSE P.O., NADAKKAVAU 673 011. 40 BIJU, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. G.M THOMAS, GANAPATHY PLAKKAL HOUSE ASOKAPURAM P.O.673 006., KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT connected cases ..15.. 41 PRIYANKA TRACY GILROY, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, MIRANDA JUNCTION KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE.,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT MIRANDA MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035. 42 MELIZA CRISS GILROY, AGED 29 YEARS D/O. ANTONY GILROY GEORGE MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE RESIDING AT MIRANDA MIRANDA JUNCTION KUNNUKUHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035. 43 SYNABA, W/O. MOIDEEN, HAJI PAYYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM KOZHIKODE 673 574. 44 ABDUL HAKKIM.M.,S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI.M. MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM.,KOZHIKODE 673 574. 45 RASEENA, W/O. ABDUL HAKKIM, MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM. KOZHIKODE 673 574. 46 K.P. RAVINDRAN, KOTTUPUTHIYOTTIL, CHERUVATHUKANDI AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT A/203 SURAYA CHS PRAKASH NAGAR, DALLARY ROAD, PASHAL PAD KURAND VILLAGE, MALAD EAST MUMBAI 400097. 47 SHYAMALA RAJAN,D/O. KUMARAN CHERUVATHUKANDI, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR TRIVENI NAGAR A/3030, PRAKASH NAGAR, PASHAL PAD, KURAND VILLAGE MALAD EAST, MUMBAI 400097 R11 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R11 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH ADDL.A.G SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN AND SR.GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-072019, ALONG WITH RP.283/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: connected cases ..16..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.572 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 28496/2016 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2019 IN WP(C) REVIEW PETITIONER/S: 1 P.T.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI HAJI, PALLITHODUKAYIL HOUSE, P.O. THAMARASSERY, PIN-673573. 2 N.M. MUSTHAFA, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, NETTAMPARCHALIL HOUSE, P.O. TALAYAD, PIN-673574. 3 P.O. SKARIA, AGED 56 YEARS PARAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O. THAMARASSERY, PIN-673573. 4 K.M. MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE, P.O. NILAMBUR-673330.
5 P.T. BHARATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, PONNUMTHORAMMAL HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O., PIN-673574. 6 K.T. MOHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS P.O.H. OF K.T. GAFOOR, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O., PIN-673574. 7 SURESH THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. THOMAS M.J., SURESH BHAVAN, P.O. KUTTIPPARA-673573. connected cases ..17.. 8 M. SASEENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. DAMODARA KURUP, CHEVIDAMPOYIL HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O., PIN-673574.
9 A. ACHUKUTTY NAIR, AGED 85 YEARS S/O. RAMAN NAIR, THAMARAMANGALAM HOUSE, P.O. KARUMALA-673612. 10 C.T. FANCIS, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, P.O. ATHIYODI-673527. 11 K.V. JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, KUMPALOLIL, WHITE HOUSE, P.O. NADAKKAVU-673011. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 ONE EARTH ONE LIFE, (REG.NO.S246/1988), THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY MR. TONY THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, IRUMBAKACHOLA, KANJIRAPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4 THE PRINCIPALSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 7 THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDI-673001. connected cases ..18.. 8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673001. 9 THE SUB REGISTRAR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673001. 10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673001. 11 M/S. COCHIN MALABAR ESTATE AND INDUSTRIES LTD., BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON KSLAND, KOCHI-682003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 12 K.C. KRISHNAN NAIR,KINALUR ESTATE P.O., KINALUR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612. 13 JOSE KYNADI, S/O. JOSEPH JACOB, KUTTANAD HOUSE, BANK ROAD, CALICUT-673001. 14 P.K. ANWAR, S/O. LATE P.K.C. AHAMMEDKUTTY, PARAKANDY, UNNIKULAM POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673574.
15 PUDUPPADI-THAMARASSERY AREA ESTATE WORKERS UNION, A.K.G. MANDIRAM, THAMARAKASSERY P.O., PIN-673573. 16 KINALUR ESTATE LABOUR UNION (TUCI), STATE PRESIDENT, PUTHUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680610. 17 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, MUKKAM P.O., KARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673602. 18 KOZHIKODE ZILLA ESTATE MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, BMS OFFICE, KALLAYI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. 19 ABDUL BASHEER M.P., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM HAJI, RESIDING AT MURIYUMPURAYIL HOUSE, POST TACHEMPOIL, KOZHIKODE-673573. 20 M.K. THANKAPPAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE KUTTAN, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, KORATTY P.O., J.T.S. ROAD, THRISSUR. connected cases ..19.. 21 N.V. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN, NEELACHERIVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O. THALAYAD, PIN-673574. 22 MATHEW AUGUSTINE, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. AUGUSTINE, MUKKALADUIL HOUSE, P.O. M.M. PARAMB, PIN-673574. 23 V.M. JOHN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH MARKOSE, VALAYIL HOUSE, P.O. THAMARASSERY, PIN-673573. 24 K.K. NAZARUDHEEN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ASSAINAR, PANAKKAL PARAMB, ASR COTTAGE, P.O. PUTHIYANGADI-673021. 25 ASSAINAR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MOIDY, PANAKKAL PARAMB, A.S.R. COTTAGE, PUTHIYANGADI P.O., PIN-673021.
26 N.M. FATHIMA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. KUNHAMMED, PANAKKAL PARAMB, P.O. PUTHIYANGADI, PIN-673021. 27 K.A. ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. AMMAD, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, P.O. EKAROOL-673302. 28 BINDU FRANCIS, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. AANTONY, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, P.O. ATHIYODY, PIN-673527. 29 BIJU THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. G.M. THOMAS, GANAPATHY PLAKKAL HOUSE, ASOKAPURAM P.O., KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 30 PRIYANKA TRACY GILROY, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. ANTORY GILROY GEORGE, MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 31 MELIZA CRISS GILROY, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. ANTORY GILROY GEORGE, MIRANDA JUNCTION, connected cases ..20.. KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY GILROY GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE MICHEAL NAYAKAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 32 SYNABA,W/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, PAYYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673574. 33 ABDUL HAKKIM M., S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI M., MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673574. 34 RASEENA, W/O. ABDUL HAKKIM, MOKAYIKKEL HOUSE, EKAROOR P.O., UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673574. 35 K.P. RAVINDRAN, KOTTUPUTHIYOTTIL, CHERUVATHUKANDI, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT A/203, SURYA CHS PAREKH NAGAR, DALLARY ROAD, PASHAL PADA, KURAD VILLAGE, MALAD EAST, MUMBAI. 36 SHYAMALA RAJAN, D/O. KUMARAN, CHERUVATHUKANDI, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR- TRIVENI NAGAR, A/303, PAREKH NAGAR, KURAR VILLAGE, MALAD EAST, MUMBAI. 37 JOSE MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, KAKKAKOODUNGAL HOUSE, NARIYANANI P.O., ELAMKULAM DESOM, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686506.
38 MUJEEB, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ABDUE HAJI, ERUMBATH HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679324. R11 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R11 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH ADDL.A.G SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN AND SR.GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-072019, ALONG WITH RP.283/2019, AND CPMMECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: connected cases ..21..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.418 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 8950/2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2019 IN WP(C) 8950/2015(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
P.D.ABRAHAM, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.LATE P.A.DEVASSIA, PINAKKATTU HOUSE, BANK ROAD, KALATHINKKUNNU AMSOM, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY ADVS. SRI.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY SRI.S.K.MADHU SRI.JEFF JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 1 A.RAVINDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, SAKETHAM, MASS CORNER, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-673009.KOZHIKODE 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DIRECTOR VIGILANCE, D.G.P., GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN (P.O.), OPPOSITE KSRTC DEPOT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 4 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-673002. connected cases ..22.. 5 K.P.USSAIN, FORMER SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE, NOW WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE-673573. 6 M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD., 21, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATTA-700001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 7 C.P.SHARMA, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.SATHYANARAYANA SHARMA JAGATDAL BABU, QTR NO.33, 24 PARGNADAS(NORTH), KOLKATTA-743125, DULY AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR OF M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD., 21, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATTA-700001, KINALUR ESTATE P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612.
8 P.K.ANWAR, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.P.K.C.AHAMMEDKUTTY, PARAKANDY, UNNIKULAM P.O., KANTHAPURAM, KOYILLANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673305. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.V.PAUL ADDL.A.G SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN AND SR.GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-072019, ALONG WITH RP.283/2019,AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: connected cases ..23..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.291 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6815/2016 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2019 IN WP(C) REVIEW PETITIONER/S: P.K.ANWAR, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.P.K.C.AHAMMEDKUTTY, PARAKANDY, UNNIKULAM P.O., UNNINKULAM AMSOM, KANTHAPURAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673305. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/S: 1 K.RAGHU NANDANAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS S/O.KULIKKILERI KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, SWAPNA (H), KUMARAN NAIR ROAD, NELLIKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, PIN- 673016. 2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME (HAVING JURISDICTIONAL CONTROL OVER THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION), NEW DELHI. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, connected cases ..24.. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695010. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682017. 6 K.P.USSAIN, FORMER SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR (A.S.R) OFFICE, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673002. 7 P.D.ABRAHAM(PAN ACHPA 5114 C), AGED 64 YEARS S/O.LATE P.A.DEVASSIA, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT PINAKKATTU HOUSE, BANK ROAD, POST KOZHIKODE, KALATHIKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN R2 BY SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR, CGC ADDL.A.G SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN AND SR.GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-072019, ALONG WITH RP.283/2019,AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: connected cases ..25..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.288 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 22195/2017 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2019 IN WP(C) REVIEW PETITIONER/S: 1 T.ABOOBACKER,S/O. MOOSA, THOTTITHODI HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 2 V KHALID, S/O. KUNHAMMED HAJI, VILLAN HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 3 V. UMMER, S/O. MOOSA, VALLIKKUNNU HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 4 A K UMMER, S/O. ABU, AMBALAKKUTHU HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.C.K.SHERIN RESPONDENT/S:
1 A.RAVINDRAN, S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, SAKETHAM, MASS CORNER, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 009 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001 connected cases ..26.. 3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001 5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001 6 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 7 STATE LAND BOARD, OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010
8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 600 001 9 THE TALUK LAND BOARD KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 614 10 DISTRICT REGISTRAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 002 11 THE SUB REGISTRAR BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 573 12 THE SUB REGISTRAR THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 573
13 THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD, 21, STRAND ROAD, KOTKATA - 700 001, WEST BENGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 14 C P SHARMA, DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD, 21, STRAND ROAD, KOTKATA - 700 001, WEST BENGAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. SATHYANARAYANAN SHARMA, JAGATDAL BABU QTR NOO. 33, 24 PARAGANS(NORTH), KOLKATA - 743 125 connected cases ..27.. 15 P K ANWAR, S/O. P.K.C AHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 27 YEARS, PARAKANDY, UNNIKULAM P.O, UNNIKULAM AMSOM, KANTHAPURAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 305
16 C.K KUNHUMUHAMMED, S/O. VEERAKUTTY, CHERUTHODI HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 17 T. GOVINDANKUTTY, S/O. KOMAPPAN NAIR, THUMPRAKKUZHIYIL, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 18 T. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, THANKAYATIL HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 19 M. NARAYANAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, MOKAYIKKAL HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 20 T. T. AMMED, S/O. MUHAMMED, THOTTITHODY HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 21 P. KHADER, S/O. AMMED, POYIL HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 22 P P CHANDUKUTTY, S/O. KELUKUTTY, PULIKKUZHY HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 23 P HAMZA, S/O. MUHAMMED, PAIKKADAN HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 24 A KUNHIMUHAMMED, S/O. ABU, AMBALAKKUTHU HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 25 K. RAMANKUTTY, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KARAMMAL HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 26 K BALAN, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, KARINTHORAMMAL HOUSE, EKAROOL P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 connected cases ..28.. 27 P. KUNHUMUHAMMED, S/O. MUHAMMED, PAIKKADAN HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574
28 T BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KRISHANAN NAIR, KOTTAKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, M.M. PARAMBA P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 29 E. VASU, S/O. KELU, MANDOTH MALAYIL HOUSE, KANNADIPOYIL P.O, BALUSSERY - 673612 30 P. SREEDHARAN, S/O. SEKHARAN NAIR, POYIL HOUSE, EKAROOL P.O, UNNIKULAM - 673 574 31 K.M SURENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, KEYATTUMEETHAL HOUSE, THALAYAD P.O, PIN - 673 574 R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN R13 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R13 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH ADDL.A.G SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN AND SR.GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-072019, ALONG WITH RP.283/2019, AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: connected cases ..29..
K. Vinod Chandran & Shircy V., JJ. ----------------------------------------- RP.No.283/2019 in WP(C) 28496 of 2016, RP.No.367/2019 in WP(C) 28496 of 2016, RP.No.420/2019 in WP(C) 28496 of 2016 RP.No.572/2019 in WP(C) 28496 of 2016 RP.No.418/2019 in WP(C) 8950 of 2015 RP.No.291/2019 in WP(C) 6815 of 2016 & RP.No.288/2019 in WP(C) 22195 of 2017 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th day of August, 2019
COMMON ORDER
Vinod Chandran, J.
The review petitions arise from a common
judgment in four writ petitions, one of which was a
public interest litigation, authored by one of us [Shircy V., J], sitting in another Division Bench. The PIL and the other writ petitions essentially challenge the fragmentation of one Kinalur Estate, held by the respondent Company, M/s. Cochin Malabar Estate and Industries Ltd. and the exemption granted by the Government to stamp duty on registration of the sale deeds in favour of workers; also pursuant to the decision to fragment the estates and convey 103 cents connected cases ..30.. each to the retrenched workmen.
2. This Court found that the fragmentation as
is intended, is a clear deviation from the avowed objective of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for brevity 'the KLR Act') to provide land to the landless. The KLR Act inter alia provides for taking surrender of lands, from land owners having ostentatious holding, in excess of a ceiling prescribed and conveying them to the landless. The exemption to stamp duty however, was not interfered with, for reason of it being a welfare measure intended at ensuring due compensation to be paid to the workmen of the erstwhile Company having extensive plantations, by way of registration of land to the tune of 103 cents for each employee, which was also in lieu of retrenchment compensation.
3. This Court found the fragmentation to be
coming squarely under Explanation II to Section 87 of the KLR Act and hence directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the issue afresh after issuing notice to the affected parties, who were put in possession pursuant to the intention to fragment the estate into small holdings. The review petitioners have vociferously connected cases ..31.. asserted before us that the judgment is patently wrong, which however, we pointed out is not a ground for review. We specifically queried the learned Counsel as to the error apparent from the face of the record. It was argued that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to have set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board, which can be subjected to alternate remedies under the KLR Act or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That the order of the Taluk Land Board was not at all under challenge and this Court committed an error in setting aside the same. That the decision misconstrues the provisions under the KLR Act and proceeds as if the intention is to preserve plantations, while the attempt itself was to fragment land holdings and equitably distribute it, which the Company had attempted. That the petition under Article 226 was found to be not maintainable still, the Division Bench interfered with the order of the Taluk Land Board and directed a re-consideration.
4. We are only concerned with the fragmentation
of the estate intended by the Company and the attempt to connected cases ..32.. convey such fragmented portions to its workers and farmers, who allegedly intend to carry on the very same activity in the fragmented land. It has been strenuously put forth that there could be conversion alleged only if there is a different user to which the land is put to, which in the present case does not arise. Suffice it to note from the facts that the Company having been under rough weather for quite a long period attempted to retrench its workers and sell off its land holdings. Huge tracts of land were in the possession of the Company having been exempted under Section 81 of Chapter III of the KLR Act; being plantations. The Company is said to have entered into an agreement with one P.K.C. Ahammedkutty; a contractor and presumably a real estate businessman. A memorandum of settlement is produced as Ext.P2, wherein the workers were offered 103 cents of land, in addition to the payments agreed to be made by the Company. Road blocks arose one after another by way of litigations, objections from Government departments and so on and so forth.
5. In the year 2010, the Taluk Land Board initiated suo motu proceedings for surrender of the connected cases ..33..
lands attempted to be fragmented. Later, the Land Board by Ext.P11 produced in the PIL, dropped the entire proceedings on the undertaking of the Company that the agreement with P.K.C Ahammedkutty had fallen through, for reason of the consideration having not been paid and the Company not intending to fragment its lands. Ext.P11
order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 20.06.2013
recording the submission of the Company.
6. Later, again the attempt to fragment and sell
the properties were resumed with the active support of the Government; purportedly as a welfare measure. We have our own doubts about it being styled as a welfare measure. A Committee comprised of the Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Land Board and the Assistant Commissioner [LA] from the office of the Land Revenue Commissioner had recorded the minutes of their meeting dated 24.10.2014, which is extracted hereunder: -
xxx XXX xxx “പ്ലാന്േറഷന് ആവശ്യത്തിനായി ഇളവ് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള ഭൂമി പല ഭാഗങ്ങളായി ഭാഗിച്ച് തൊഴിലാളികളുടെ പേരില് കൈമാറ്റം ചെയ്യാന് KLR Act പ്രകാരം നിയമതടസ്സമുണ്ടെന്നും, പ്രസ്തുത ഭൂമി സര്ക്കാര് ഏറ്റെടുത്തതിനുശേഷം, ആവശ്യമെങ്കില് ടി തൊഴിലാളികള്ക്ക്connected cases ..34.. സര്ക്കാറിന്െറ പ്രത്യേക GRM}JAGI1EWIS}AS] പതിച്ചുനല്കാന് മാത്രമേ സാധ്യത കാണുന്നുള്ളുവെന്നും, അപ്രകാരം ചെയ്യുമ്പോള് സ്റ്റാമ്പ് ഡ്യൂട്ടിയുടെ വിഷയം ഉദിക്കുന്നില്ലായെന്നും രരെജിസ്ട്രേഷന് ഇന്സ്പെക്ടര് ജനറല് അറിയിക്കുകയുണ്ടായി.
കിനാലൂര് എസ്റ്റേറ്റ് തൊഴിലാളികളുടെ പേര്ക്ക് നേരിട്ട് കൈമാറ്റം നടത്താന് നിയമപ്രകാരം സാധിക്കില്ലായെന്നും, സര്ക്കാര് ഏറ്റെടുത്തതിനുശേഷം KLR Act പ്രകാരം പതിച്ചുകൊടുക്കാന് മാത്രമേ സാധിക്കുകയുള്ളുവെന്നും ബോധ്യമായതായി നികുതി വകുപ്പ് സെക്രട്ടറി അറിയിച്ചു. കൂടാതെ പ്ലാന്േറഷന് ആവശ്യത്തിനുള്ള ഭൂമി മുറിച്ച് കൈമാറ്റം ചെയുന്നത് നിയമപ്രകാരമല്ലായെന്നും സ്വരെകട്ടറി അറിയിച്ചു.”
x XX റോം റോ
7. As per the opinion expressed by this Committee,
there is prohibition, insofar as the fragmentation of the lands and the conveyance attempted to the workers. However, the Committee clearly expressed their opinion that the land could be taken over by the Government and with special permission, it could be conveyed to the workers, in which event the issue of exemption from stamp duty does not at all arise. The take over would be by enforcing surrender under Section 87 of the KLR Act. It was also opined that there could be no conveyance by the Company in favour of the workmen,
especially when the property is exempted as plantationconnected cases ..35.. under Section 81 of the KLR Act. We are in perfect agreement with the said opinion expressed by the Committee, which however was brushed aside by the Government who granted exemption to stamp duty as per Ext.P18. We are not concerned with Ext. P18 as such, since it has already been held in the judgment under review that the same is not liable to be interfered with as it is a welfare measure.
8. On the question of fragmentation, the
contention urged now is that the KLR intends such fragmentation and it never intended preservation of plantations. We only notice a caveat insofar as the fragmentation and equitable distribution being the exclusive premise of the statutory authorities created under the KLR Act; not to be arrogated by a Company who holds lands far in excess of the ceiling limit only by virtue of the exemption under Chapter III to KLR Act. The landless who are to be given such lands cannot be identified by the land holder; which the authorities under the KLR Act have to do in accordance with the procedure delineated there. Otherwise every landholder could transfer his holding in excess of the limit connected cases ..36.. prescribed, which would defeat the provisions of the statute, against which there is a specific prohibition. Suffice it to observe that the conveyance of lands to the individual workers absolved the Company to an extent from paying up the retrenchment compensation due to the workers and there was no public welfare intended with such fragmentation.
9. The Division Bench had noticed Section 87 as
also Explanation I and II to sub-section (1) and the judgements of this Court in Raghavan v. State of Kerala and other [1977 KLT 57] and Chacko Varghese v. Taluk Land Bord [1982 KLT 72] concerned respectively with Explanation I and II. We need to briefly refer to the aforesaid judgments to understand how fragmentation comes under Explanation II to Section 87(1) of the KLR Act. Here we notice that there are separate exemptions available under Chapter II and Chapter III of the KLR Act. Chapter II is with respect to tenancy, right to fixity of tenure, fixation of fair rent and purchase of landlord's rights by cultivating tenants etc:, with which we are not concerned. We only notice Section 3 under Chapter II providing for exemptions, including connected cases ..37.. tenancy in respect of plantations, exceeding 30 acres. The exemptions as claimed for in these cases by the Company is under Section 81 of Chapter III, which exemption is applicable from the ceiling limit as prescribed under Section 82 of the KLR Act.
10. Section 87 provides for surrender of lands
held in excess of ceiling area, when the exceeding of
the limit is by way of a subsequent acquisition of land after the date notified under Section 83, by virtue of any kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise. The solitary explanation as it existed under Section 87(1) provided that when land is exempted under Section 81 and it remained so on the date notified under Section 83; with effect from the date on which such exemption ceases, it would be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under Section 83. In Raghavan (supra) the question was on the conversion of land, by which the essential character of the exempted land was lost. Proceedings were taken for determining the excess lands, for the purpose of enforcing surrender, which was challenged before this Court. connected cases ..38..
11. The Explanation to Section 87(1) was found,
in Raghavan (supra) to be confined in its application to clauses (b), (h) and (k) of Section 81, where there is specific date prescribed for cessation of exemption. The deeming provision in Explanation I being related to a date from which the cessation of exemption takes place was found to be confined in its application. In the case of cessation of exemption by conversion often the same would be gradual and cannot be pinned down to a date was the finding. However, it was held so in para 7:-
7. True, S.87 (1) read with the
explanation, as construed here, does not enable Taluk Land Boards to meet situations where there is conversion of extensive areas of land exempt for reasons such as they were private forests prior to 1-1-1970 into non-exempted categories after 1-1-1970. Possibly it may be necessary to bring such cases also within the ambit of excess land for surrender in keeping with the spirit of the legislation which is evidently to prevent accumulation of land in the hands of a few. But that is a proper subject for legislative treatment. Whether the clauses require any modification to meet specific situations
connected cases ..39..
is a matter for legislative concern. It is only when the ceiling provisions are worked out in practice that situations calling for notice by legislature may arise. The role of the court is limited to considering the statute before it and if the situation calls for any treatment, it is for the legislature to move in the matter.
12. The legislature took notice and Explanation II came into the statute, which was upheld in Chacko Varghese (supra); holding so:
7. A reading of the above provisions shows
that where a land has been converted from one category into another category after 1- 1-1970 as laid down in Explanation II, and thereby the total extent of land owned or
held by a person exceeds the ceiling area,
the land in excess of the ceiling area has to be treated as land acquired after 1-1-
1970. Such land has to be surrendered under S.87 of the Act in the same way excess land as on 1-1-1970 has to be surrendered under S 85 of the Act”.
13. Chacko Varghese (supra) had this to say about Explanation II to Section 87: connected cases ..40..
8. Explanation II to S.87 of the Act
contemplates two types of conversion; one is conversion of a class of land specified in Schedule II into another class of land specified in that schedule and the second is conversion of any land exempt under S.81 from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act into any class of land not so exempt. In the present case we are concerned with the second type of conversion.
9. What is meant by conversion or
converting a land from one class to another? When is one class of land said to be converted into another class of land? According to the Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary, “convert” means to change or turn from one thing, condition to another; to alter one thing into another; to apply to a particular purpose. Conversion would normally be a conscious and voluntary act. A coconut garden can be converted into paddy field or vice versa or into arecanut or rubber plantation etc. These conversions would be the result of a definite intention on the part of the converter to do so. A person entertains an intention to convert and does an act in furtherance of the intention which results in the alteration
connected cases ..41..
of one state of thing into another. Just as the action is important, the intention also is important. That is what has been stressed by this Court in the unreported decisions referred to above. There may also be cases where by utter neglect a plantation is allowed to deteriorate as a result of which it ceases to be a plantation.
10. Let us take a case of rubber plantation
containing very old trees whose income is sharply dwindling. The owner of the plantation may desire to do one of several things. He may desire to cut down the old trees and replant the area with rubber plants. He may desire to cut down the old trees and use the land for paddy cultivation or tapioca cultivation. Or he may intend to plant coconut plants in the land. It is in pursuance of such varied intentions that work will be commenced, proceeded with and finished. In each of these cases there will be a given point of time when old rubber trees are already cut but the next phase of work has not commenced or has not progressed or has not finished. If the intention is to convert a plantation into a coconut garden, rubber trees have to be cut, the area
connected cases ..42..
cleared, pits dug for coconut plants and then the planting work has to be done. Similarly, in the case of replanting with rubber plants there may be an interval of time between the cutting down of the rubber trees and planting rubber plants. If the cutting has been done after 1-1-1970 and if the replanting rubber plants is delayed for one reason or the other it cannot be said that rubber plantation has been converted into other dry land. That depends mainly on the intention of the person and the work he does in the land. There can be a case where trees are cut down and thereafter on account of financial stringency or ill-health or other reasons the work of replanting is postponed. That will not mean that he has abandoned the intention of replanting rubber plants and the land is converted into other dry land and it cannot be said that there has been a change from one class or state to another. The condition in which the land finds itself after the old rubber trees are cut and before replanting is done is not a permanent condition but only a temporary phase. The fact that a particular work passes through an intermediate stage cannot necessarily mean that there is no intention to retain the character of the land as
connected cases ..43..
plantation Of course,- there may be other cases where a person intends to convert a rubber plantation into coconut garden or paddy field. That is different from a case where the intention is to replant with rubber plants but he has been prevented from doing so in time. The decision on a controversy like this has to be arrived at on an appreciation of the relevant materials in each case. There can be no rule of the thumb by which one can say that if the replanting is done, saywithin two months or six months or one year there is no conversion involved or that if the replanting is done after one year or two years it has to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some other category of land. Each case will have to be decided on the circumstances existing and material available in such case.
11. The act of cutting down old rubber
trees by itself cannot lead to the inference that the land is converted into other dry land. It may be so in certain circumstances. It may not be so in other circumstances If there is a scheme for replantation, if the land has been ear- marked for the purpose of replanting and if connected cases ..44..
the act of cutting rubber trees is in pursuance of the scheme and part of an integrated activity towards such an end, from the mere fact that there has been delay in carrying out the work of replanting, it cannot be said that the land has been converted from plantation into other dry land. The act of cutting rubber trees may be part of an act of such conversion or it may be part of the scheme of replanting. Whether it is one or the other depends upon the intention, ear- making, scheme and other attendant circumstances.
14. Hence, the intention is the most relevant
aspect which has to be considered to decide whether there is conversion. There can be no conversion found even when the plantation was not fruitfully carried out for a variety of reasons including financial stringency, if there is discernible a definite intention to retain the character and nature of the land. Then obviously, there can be no conversion alleged. As a corollary, if the intention reveals an attempt to convert, though immediately the action may not lead to it, that would be adequate and sufficient ground for invocation of connected cases ..45.. Section 87.
15. As to the fragmentation, intended here, we
look at whether it would necessarily result in conversion. As we held earlier, the Company cannot fragment plantations owned by it and sell it or convey it in lieu of compensation to its own workers and contend that the transfer is to advance the cause of the KLR Act. It is for the statutory authorities to identify the landless and convey such surrendered lands under the KLR Act to eligible persons. The attempted transfer by the Company to its own workers is in lieu of the compensation to be paid and in the case of the other purchasers, styled as farmers allegedly intending to continue the plantations, it is for consideration. When the State seeks for surrender of excess lands, in excess of the ceiling limit, the land owner is entitled to compensation as permitted under Section 88 of the KLR Act, only at the rates specified in Schedule IV.
16. In this context, we have to notice that
fragmentation of large tracts of property held by the Company and conveyance to individual land holders, especially as small tracts of land; defeats the connected cases ..46.. provisions of the KLR Act. In the hands of such land owners, the individual holding would be far less than that provided in Section 82 and the holders could make any conversions there on, which would be incapable of any proceeding under Section 85 and under the provisions of Chapter III for surrender and redistribution among the landless. Hence the very intention proclaimed of fragmentation and transfer of small tracts of land, far below the ceiling limit, to workers and farmers, the former in lieu of compensation due to workers and the latter for consideration, attempts conversion and removing the lands from the exempted categories.
17. We also notice the submission made by the
learned Additional Advocate General, which was recorded in the judgment under review, that many of these intended transfers resulted in conceding the possession of the fragmented areas, wherein constructions have come up. We do not think that there is any review possible on the ground that the provisions of the KLR Act was not correctly considered by the Division Bench.
18. The further ground taken by the review
petitioners is against the interference to Ext.P11 order
connected cases ..47.. of the Taluk Land Board, when there are alternate remedies available. The public interest litigation was under Article 226 and the Division Bench found that fragmentation of lands and the conveyance to various individuals, including workers of the Company; of lands
held on the basis of an exemption under the KLR Act was
against the provisions of the KLR Act as also against public policy. Having found so, this Court only revived the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board on the very same cause of action of fragmentation attempted earlier by the Company, which was closed on the mere submission of the Company that the agreement with the third party for sale and fragmentation has not fructified for reason of the full consideration having not been paid. Having held the impugned action of the Company, which was also with the active aid of the State, to be against the statutory provisions as also detrimental to public policy, this Court quite conscious of the fact that there are third parties involved in the matter, directed the Taluk Land Board to re-consider the issue. In re-considering the matter, definitely, the order, which closed the proceedings on the submission of connected cases ..48.. the Company that there was no fragmentation intended had to be set aside and the proceedings revived. Even otherwise dehors Ext.P11 the Taluk Land Board could have at any point initiated suo motu proceedings for determination of excess lands invoking Section 87. We find no infirmity in the directions nor is it a ground for review [See Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others [(2013) 8 SCC 320], N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria and Others [(2013) 15 SCC 534].
19. This reasoning would apply equally to the
ground raised of all the affected parties not being made parties in the writ petition, since the direction to the Taluk Land Board is to issue notice to all the parties and to take a decision in the matter. We do not think that this Court had at any time opined that the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable and we reject the said contention raised on behalf of one of the review petitioners. The finding as specifically pointed out by the review petitioner is in paragraph 16, of the
judgment under review, which only indicates the Division
Bench having found the fragmentation to be a cause for cessation of exemption of lands, but rightly felt it not connected cases ..49.. possible for further consideration under Article 226. This is not to say that a writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226.
20. The statutory authority, Taluk Land Board,
was directed to resume its earlier proceedings under the KLR Act, for enforcing surrender of lands exceeding the ceiling limit, which was once initiated by the Taluk Land Board and was closed on the submission of the Company that the fragmentation of exempted lands is not being proceeded with. Admittedly, after the proceedings were closed, the intention of fragmentation revived and the process of conveyance itself was resumed. Ext.P11
order merely closed the proceedings on the submission
made by the Company that there would be no fragmentation and there is no scope for appeal or revision from that order. If fragmentation is again attempted, invocation of Section 87(1) read with Explanation II cannot be forestalled by reason only of Exhibit P11. Ext. P11 by itself would not have restrained the Taluk Land Board from afresh initiating suo motu proceedings and hence the Division Bench directed resumption, which this Court is competent to direct under Article 226 itself. connected cases ..50.. We hence do not find any error apparent from the face of the record and reject the review petitions. Parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN Judge. Sd/- SHIRCY V. Judge. SB/vku/14/08/2019