Disposed

Tecil Chemicals and Hydro Power Limited v. the Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC3 Aug 2018WP(C)/26195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the State Government to expeditiously consider the petitioner's representation for land exemption under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and to defer the ceiling proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board until such orders are passed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to consider the representation within three months and defer the Taluk Land Board's ceiling proceedings until orders are passed.

Tecil Chemicals and Hydro Power Limited Vs the Taluk Land… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 26195 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

TECIL CHEMICALS AND HYDRO POWER LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHAJI K.MATHEW, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM-685 531.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.ANJALI NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

¶11

COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY(REVENUE),

¶14

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P. MADHU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶17

ON 03-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 26195 of 2018 (Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED 28.12.1994.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.302/2009/RD DATED 30.07./2009 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.117/2015/REVENUE DATED 20.03.2015 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.408/2015/RD DATED 22.8.2015 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE (N) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.1.2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE HONBLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 08.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CEILING CASE NO.SMC 01/2016/KTM.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 20.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CEILING CASE NO.SMC 01/2016/KTM.
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 07.07.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN SMC NO.1/2016.

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/4.8.18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P(C).No.26195 Of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2018.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, is engaged in the manufacture of Calcium Carbide and certain allied products. It is the case of the petitioner-company that on account of the new trends in the market, they could not compete effectively in the market and eventually the production unit had become almost defunct. That, as is discernible from Government Orders dated 30.7.2009 & 20.3.2015, several attempts were made to resume production in the factory till the year 2015. That now, a new management has taken over the company and has submitted proposals before the Government for establishment of different types of industrial establishments in the land concerned which had earlier obtained exemption under Sec.81(1)(k) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. That, in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent-Taluk Land Board, Kottayam, had initiated proceedings against the petitioner alleging that since 1999 there has not been production in the unit and therefore the land has ceased to be industrial land and hence ceiling proceedings are attracted. Ext.P-7 notice dated 8.2.2018 issued by the 1st respondent-Taluk Land Board is in respect of the ceiling case

¶31

::2::

¶32

W.P(C).No.26195 Of 2018

¶33

registered as S.M.C.No.1/2016/KTM. The petitioner places reliance on the beneficial Government Orders issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government in orders as in Ext.P-4 Government Order, G.O(MS).No.408/2015/RD dated 22.8.2015 wherein general order has been issued allowing entrepreneurs to hold more land than the ceiling limit by invoking Sec.81(3)(b) of the KLR Act. The petitioner has now filed Ext.P-5 representation dated 20.12.2017 before the competent authority of the 2nd respondent-State Government seeking the benefit of exemption for the land of the petitioner-company in view of the new ventures proposed by the petitioner-company. The grievance of the petitioner is that when Ext.P-5 representation is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, the ceiling proceedings are being continued by the 1st respondent-Taluk Land Board. It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioner has now filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) seeking the following main reliefs:

¶34

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to keep the entire proceedings initiated as per Exhibit P7 notice in abeyance till the disposal of Exhibit P5 representation by the Government; Or in the alternative

¶35

direct the 1st respondent to drop the entire proceeding initiated as per Ext.P-7 notice as the same is without any legal basis.

¶36

ii) issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the 1st respondent from proceeding further with Exhibit P7 proceedings.”

¶37

::3::

¶38

W.P(C).No.26195 Of 2018

¶39

Heard Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel,

¶40

instructed by Sri.K.P.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.P.Madhu, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶41

Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the limited prayer that is now being sought for by the petitioner is only for a direction for early expeditious consideration of Ext.P-5 representation by the 2nd respondent-State Government so that a considered decision is taken thereon without much delay and until orders are passed on Ext.P-5 by the 2nd respondent, further proceedings as in Ext.P-7 issued by the 1st respondent-Taluk Land Board may be ordered to be kept in abeyance.

¶42

In the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed in this petition, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the competent authority of the 2nd respondent-State Government should take up for consideration the request of the petitioner as made out in Ext.P-5 dated 20.12.2017 without much delay and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will pass orders thereon, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

¶43

::4::

¶44

W.P(C).No.26195 Of 2018

¶45

certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are passed by the 2 nd respondent on Ext.P-5 representation as aforestated, further proceedings in Ext.P-7 notice issued by the 1st respondent-Taluk Land Board will stand deferred.

¶46

The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for necessary information and further action.

¶47

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

Judge.

Bkn/-

// True copy //

P.A to Judge.

Tecil Chemicals and Hydro Power Limited v. the Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tecil Chemicals and Hydro Power Limited v. the Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Muhammed Nisar Vs the Land Tribunal, Tirur

Sasidharan Vs Presiding Officer, Ernakulam District Maintenance Tribunal

George Baby Vs the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department

Vava Thankappan Vs the Union of India

Saidalavi Vs the Sub Registrar

Pradeep E.P. Vs the Village Officer