Dismissed

Idukki Jilla Estate Mazdoor Sangh v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2020WA/419/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld a Single Judge's decision dismissing a writ petition challenging a Government Order allowing companies to cut trees. Finding no established title, the Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi and no right was infringed, directing labour law remedies if employees' rights were affected.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition is allowed.

Idukki Jilla Estate Mazdoor Sangh Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.419 OF 2020

¶8

JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2020 IN WP(C) 2541/2020(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/PETITIONER:

¶10

IDUKKI JILLA ESTATE MAZDOOR SANGH REGISTRATION NO. 302/84, NEDUMKANDOM, 685 553, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REGION, SUNIL. S. S/O. SUKUMARAN, KUZHIPPARAMBIL, KUPPAKKAZHAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 686 513.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.D.SREEKANTH SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI 685 603.

¶17

3 BOYCE RUBBER PVT. LTD., 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, 673 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR N.K. KHALID, RESIDING AT 18/547, NELLIKOTE HOUSE, Z.C.H. N. ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 002.

¶18

4 HARRISON MALAYALAM LTD., 24/1624, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

SRI.MOHAMED ANZAR.K.J., SPL.GP(REVENUE), SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R4

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.A. No. 419/2020

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2020.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶26

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the judgment dated 30.01.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 2541 of 2020, by which following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 33122 of 2014, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:

¶27

“2. A Division Bench of this Court, in fact, had considered the issue related to recovery of land invoking the provisions under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act in W.P.(C).No.33122/2014 and connected cases (Exhibit-P6 judgment). The Division Bench interfered with the invocation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act holding that without establishing title on which there are rival claims between the Government and the respondent companies, the Government cannot invoke the provisions under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. It was observed at para.141 of the above judgment as follows:

¶28

...Title cannot be adjudicated under the KLC Act, intended only at eviction of unauthorised occupation. Title, to establish it or to controvert it, has to be adjudicated before a Civil Court. Title, we reiterate, in this context, we have not found on the petitioners, which we are incompetent to do in the present proceedings. Title, has to be found after adducing evidence in a properly initiated civil proceeding, if the State ventures so, to institute...

¶29

The Apex Court also affirmed the said judgment. At this juncture, the Government appears to have taken a decision by the impugned order to institute a civil suit to recover the land based on the title.

¶30

In the absence of any established title over the land, this

¶31

W.A. No. 419/2020

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

Court cannot now enter into a finding that the Government could not have granted permission to the respondent companies to cut and remove trees in the land. In what manner the improvements in the land in question can be treated would depend upon the nature of the cultivation carried out by the persons holding the land.

¶34

As of now, the petitioner has no right to question such decision. None of the rights of the members of the petitioner-union are infringed on account of the decision of the Government. If rights of the members of the petitioner-union who claim to be the employees of the respondent companies are affected, their right is to invoke the machineries under labour law.

¶35

In another writ petition filed before this Court as W.P. (C).No.20644/2019 seeking a direction to the Government to initiate action in a time bound manner, this Court as per judgment dated 22.8.2019 had observed as follows:

¶36

This Court cannot fix any time to initiate action. Further the petitioners have no locus standi to seek such directions. The Government has also decided to accept the basic tax of the petitioners, taking note of possession of the 2nd respondent and its transferees. Therefore, there is no scope for issuing any directions as sought for by the petitioner. In such circumstances this writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.

¶37

In a private instituted litigation, the petitioner is bound to establish locus standi. As observed in the afore-noted paragraph, the petitioner cannot question decision of the Government in permitting the respondent companies to cut and remove trees, as the petitioner has no right over such planted trees. In such circumstances, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed in limine.”

¶38

The correctness of the said judgment is assailed in

¶39

the following grounds:

¶40

W.A. No. 419/2020

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

“B. The learned single Judge went wrong in giving narrow interpretation to the concept of “Locus standi” and “aggrieved person” in as much as the Honourable Supreme Court has given wider meaning to these concepts and has held that any person even remotely interested in the subject matter and not being a busybody or meddlesome interloper is entitled to move constitutional courts for redressal of his grievances and has locus standi to move the court.

¶43

C. The learned single Judge failed to note that the impugned GO is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the record, insofar as the Government has permitted the respondents 3 and 4 to cut and remove rubber trees and replant Government land that too when a suit is contemplated to recover the Government land from the respondents 3 and 4.

¶44

D. The learned single Judge failed to note that the 2^nd respondent has a duty to file suit against the 3^rd respondent to recover the Government land in the possession of the 3^rd respondent and to ensure that status quo in relation to the said land is maintained till the suit is decided. The delay in filing suit is illegal and arbitrary.

¶45

E. The learned single Judge ought to have seen from Exhibit P7, produced in the writ petition, that the District Collector, Kottayam has already filed suit against the assignee of the 4^th respondent to recover Government land. However, no action is being taken by the second respondent in that regard in order to curry favour with the 3^rd respondent under political pressure and influence.

¶46

F. The learned single Judge ought to have seen that there is no justification in allowing the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to cut and remove rubber trees from a large extent of land that too without

¶47

W.A. No. 419/2020

¶48

: 5 :

¶49

any inspection and without marking the rubber trees to be cut and removed. This is highly arbitrary and illegal.

¶50

G. The learned single Judge ought to have seen that in the event of respondents 3 and 4 are permitted to replant large extent of land, the cost thereof including the value of the tree will have to be paid by the Government casting heavy financial burden on the Government, especially in a situation where the exchequer is under severe financial strain to even meet the daily expenses of the Government. This amounts to bad governance and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that bad governance is highly unreasonable and arbitrary and amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

¶51

Though Sri. P. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant, made submissions on the above said grounds and informed that the members of the Union have decided to question the validity of the Government Order, GO(MS) No. 172/2019/RD dated 06.06.2019, we are of the view that the members of the Union cannot be said to be aggrieved persons to seek for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid Government Order, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, in the absence of any established title over the land, the court cannot enter into a finding of fact regarding title and it is open to the Government to take a decision regarding the cutting and removal of the trees. That apart, it could be seen that the Government Order

¶52

W.A. No. 419/2020

¶53

: 6 :

¶54

impugned in the writ petition has been issued, taking note of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.33122 of 2014 and batch dated 11.04.2018 and other decisions referred to in the Government Order.

¶55

In the light of the above decisions and the discussions, we find no error in the impugned judgment, warranting interference of this Court.

¶56

Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶57

sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY,

JUDGE.

W.A. No. 419/2020

: 7 :

APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

¶66

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2019 IN WPC NO. 20644 OF 2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶67

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

¶68

/True Copy/

¶69

PS to Judge.

¶70

Idukki Jilla Estate Mazdoor Sangh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idukki Jilla Estate Mazdoor Sangh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu N.P Vs Department of Mining and Geology

Sr.Salomi Vs State of Kerala

Elvis J.Alex Vs the Secretary

A.M.Raveendran, Vs Thalassery Municipality

Centurion Laboratories Vs the State of Kerala

V.N.Public Health & Educational Trust Vs Union of India