IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 141 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 942 2009 IN OS.141/2009 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDATS IN THE OS -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CENTRAL CIRCLE VANAPRIYA FOREST COMPLEX, PARAVATTANI,THRISSUR. BY ADDL. A.G. SRI. REJNJITH THAMPAN. RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD,. BRISTOW ROAD WILLINGDON, ISLAND, COCHIN 682 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - LEGAL M.V.H.MENON. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 141 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, Aggrieved by the oder dated 24.3.2009 in I.A. 942 of 2009 in O.S. 141 of 2009 before the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, the respondent before the court below comes up in appeal. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the court below. 2. The petitioner Company is in possession of a large extent of land obtained by way of lease from the State Government. They have effected considerable improvements in the property. Respondent State had issued a communication dated 7.2.2009 cancelling the three lease deeds, by which the petitioner Company hold the properties and seeking to resume an extent of 4896.65 acres. The allegation was that the petitioner Company had violated the terms of the lease. Plaintiff Company pointed out that the allegations are untrue F.A.O. 141/2009. 2 and that they have been holding the land and have been complying with the terms of the lease deeds. Pointing out that there was no bonafides or truth in the claim made by the State, they laid the suit. I.A. No.942 of 2009 was filed seeking interim injunction restraining the State from dispossessing the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. 3. The State resisted the petition by pointing out that the Company is guilty of violating the terms of the lease and therefore are not entitled to continue in possession. The argument was that the lease was for rubber cultivation and there were specific terms in the lease deeds that the lands shall not be used for any other purpose. The specific case of the State was that the land had been subleased to various persons contrary to the terms of the lease and the company had made profit out of the same. Claiming that the State is entitled to resume the lands, the State pointed out that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the petition. 4. The court below, for the purpose of the interlocutory application had Exts. A1 to A3 marked from the side of the F.A.O. 141/2009. 3 petitioner and Exts.B1 to B6 marked on the side of the respondents. On a consideration of the materials before it, the court below found that a prima facie case has been made out by the Company and granted the interim injunction prayed for by them. The said order is assailed in this appeal. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State pointed out that the Company has no right to seek any relief in the suit, they are guilty of violating the terms of the lease and therefore, the State is entitled to resume the land. According to the learned Government Pleader, notice has been issued to the Company to surrender the land and the lease stands terminated. Having violated the terms of the lease whereby they have incurred the obligation to surrender the land, it is stated that no equity or justice enures in favour of the Company and the court below ought to have dismissed the petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the appeal on the other hand pointed out that it was a long term lease and the allegation of violation of the terms of the lease is incorrect. F.A.O. 141/2009. 4 The Company has been complying with the terms of the lease and there is no bonafides in the claim made by the State. The State has been acting on extraneous considerations and is entitled to no relief. 7. On going through the order of the court below it is clear that there were several proceedings in respect of this matter. The fact however remains that the plaintiff Company is still in possession of the land and is carrying on cultivation. The allegation of the State appears to be that contrary to the terms of the lease the Company had subleased the property and made profit of about Rs.96.84 Lakhs. According to the State, the Company had subleased the property to several persons, who cultivated several crops and this was in violation of the terms of the lease. It is seen from the records that there were proceedings before this Court also. Whatever that be, the fact remains that the area stands cultivated with rubber and also there are some other crops. The State has no case that they have made any improvements in the property. The fact remains that the entire improvements in the property have been F.A.O. 141/2009. 5 made by the plaintiff Company. Even assuming that ultimately the Company may be found to be guilty of violation of the terms of the lease and have to surrender the properties, the fact remains that they are entitled to continue in possession till then. It is claimed that the land is exempted from the ceiling provisions under the Land Reforms Act. 8. It is true that notice has been issued to the plaintiff Company pointing out the violations made by the Company and also directing that the land may be surrendered. There are also allegations of violation of the provisions of the Forest Act. 9. However, the lease is of the year 1905. Ever since then the land has been in the possession of the Company. It may be that there are cultivations other than rubber in the property. But whether there was a sub lease and whether the Company has violated the terms of the lease are matters yet to be determined. 10. The court below has gone through the terms of the lease and have come to a prima facie conclusion that it could not be said that the other cultivations were altogether prohibited. F.A.O. 141/2009. 6 However, the court feels that that matter is yet to be determined. The court below has found that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and refusing the temporary injunction may result in irreparable loss and injury to the Company. On going through the order, which is a detailed one, it does not appear that the court below has erred in its tentative conclusion. The result is that the appeal is without merit and it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.