IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 738 of 2008(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAN COCHIN 682003,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF MANAGER-LEGALMR,V.VENUGOPAL. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,RPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,ERUMELI NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE, KANHIRAPALLY DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,EDAKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KANHIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.738 OF 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.964/07 DATED 12.11.07 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P1(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.393/07 DATED 12.12.07 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, VYTHIRI DATED 2.7.1982 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.1993 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRP NO.3661 OF 1982 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.12.07 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED TRUE PHOTOCOPY DATED 28.12.07 OF THE ORDER NO.E5-55474/05(5) DATED 20.11.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE TAHSILDAR, KANHIRAPPALLY. / TRUE COPY / THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.738 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by a company challenging Exts.P1 and P2 whereby certain revenue officers have interdicted felling of rubber trees from the extent of property what is known by Mundakkayam Estate, Kanjirappally Taluk in Kottayam District. Ext.P6 is the order of the District Collector. That decision is also under challenge. 2. The learned senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents relying on the counter affidavit states that large chunks of lands which having been primarily intended for being dealt with in the ceiling case have also been sold in favour of a third person by M/s.Harrison Malayalam Ltd. from out of the Mundakkayam Estate and still further that the request of that person for felling of rubber trees from the parcel sold to him is still pending consideration and that there is only an interim order that he could cut rubber trees by paying seignorage to the Government. 3. Ext.P3 is the order of the Taluk Land Board, Vythiri issued on 2.7.1982. In so far as the Mundakkayam Estate is concerned, the said order states that as per the draft statement, the total area in the possession of the company is 3.681.06 acres out of which an extent of 3,549.42 acres have already been exempted. The balance area was directed to be surrendered. Acting on the report of the Tahsildar, Kanjirappally that 94.72 acres are W.P.(C) No.738 of 2008 2 replanted after 1.4.1964 and that this was an old rubber plantation, the said extent has also been exempted by the Taluk Land Board. Regarding the balance 36.92 acres, the authorised officer's report was relied on to note that this area was within the rubber plantation and that was also exempted. Thus as per the Taluk Land Board's order dated 2.7.1982 the Mundakkayam Estate has been exempted. 4. The Malayalam Plantations (India) Limited carried a civil revision petition under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 challenging Ext.P3 order in so far as it negatived the request of the company for granting exemption in relation to certain other parcels of land. There was no revision by the State Government as against Ext.P3. Therefore, in as much as the Mundakkayam Estate is concerned, Ext.P3 order has become final. 5. In Ext.P4, this Court allowed the aforesaid revision of the company and remitted the matter for reconsidering the further subsisting claims for exemption. When proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 order is held by the Taluk Land Board, it cannot in any manner touch the exemptions already granted as per Ext.P3. Viewed in the aforesaid angle there is absolutely no reason for imposition of any restriction on the felling of rubber trees from the Mundakkayam Estate. 6. Be that as it may, the learned senior Government Pleader points out that as of now, the Government have constituted an high level committee to W.P.(C) No.738 of 2008 3 look into the allegations of encroachment, as also the title over certain properties including the properties of the company and the matter is being looked into, to ensure that the public interest is protected properly and that it is expedient that the rubber trees are not felled without paying seignorage. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any sustainable ground to continue Exts.P1, P2 and P6 on record and they are accordingly quashed and the writ petition is allowed. However it is further directed that if the State, if it so desires, may initiate any demand for seignorage and the petitioner company shall pay the same under protest subject to its entitlement to seek redressal against such demand. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE vns