IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1359 of 2010()
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY &
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUD CHEMIE INDIA (P) LTD.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/08/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1359 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
The respondents in W.P.(C) No.32544 of 2006 are the
appellants herein. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated
26th May, 2010. The sole respondent, a private limited company,
secured allotment of 21.52 acres land from the State of Kerala in the
year 1976 for the purpose of establishing an industrial unit in the
Edayar Industrial Area. Eventually the abovementioned piece of
land was transferred to the respondent herein by way of assignment
under the Rules for the assignment of Government lands for
industrial purposes. The said Rules are made in exercise of the
powers conferred on the Government of Kerala under Sections 3 and
7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
2. Admittedly the respondent set up an industrial unit
where chemicals and catalysts are manufactured. It appears from
W.A.No.1359 of 2010
– 2 –
the judgment under appeal that initially when the industrial unit
was set up in the year 1976 the turnover of the industry was
around 10 to 15 crores of rupees whereas by the time the writ
petition came to be filed the turnover of the industry rose to
Rs.160 crores. It is stated at the Bar that for the year 2009-2010
the annual turnover of the industrial unit is Rs.358 crores.
3. However, by the order under Ext.P8 (G.O.(MS)
No.168/06/Rev. dated 29.5.2006) the appellants herein
purported to repossess an extent of 5 acres 21 cents and 900
sq.links of land out of the originally assigned extent of land
from the possession of the respondent on the ground that the
said portion of land remained unutilized. Therefore, the writ
petition.
4. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of
this Court allowed the writ petition holding as follows:
“I am of opinion that these rules do not
postulate that every inch of land assigned in favour of
a person under the rules should be occupied by
buildings, failing which, the Government is entitled
W.A.No.1359 of 2010
– 3 –
to resume the land. That is not the spirit of the rules
at all. Naturally every growing industry would
require land for expansion. Expansion cannot be in
the beginning itself. It can only be in the course of
time as the business of the industry expands.
Therefore naturally for that purpose also the industry
would require land. If Government takes a stand that
the entire land assigned should be utilized all at once
then the industry cannot progress at all. It will
always have to stand still, especially in view of the
fact that out of the 50 acres originally required by the
petitioner, the Government was able to assign only
25.52 acres. Practically the conditions in Ext.P3 patta
are a re-production of th above said rules which also
do not contain any provision to the contrary. For all
the above reasons, I do not find any justification for
resumption of the land as done by the Government in
Ext.P8 order. Accordingly Ext.P8 order is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed as above.”
5. We are entirely in agreement with the logic and
conclusion of the judgment under appeal. The only thing we
wish to add to the above extracted conclusion is that it is not
only the spirit of the said Rules but it is also the letter of the said
Rules which is important and there is nothing in the Rules which
W.A.No.1359 of 2010
– 4 –
require that every inch of the land assigned for an industrial
purpose should actually be put to use in the sense of making
construction thereon or carrying on some other activity at once.
In the absence of such a stipulation, a reading of such a
requirement into the Rules would not only be contrary to the
settled principles of interpretation of statutes and statutory
instruments but also would be an irrational and unreasonable
understanding of the scheme and purpose of the Rules.
In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to
interfere with the judgment under appeal. Therefore, the writ
appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge
vns