IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 141 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
3. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, OFFICE OF THE
Vs
1. M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD,. BRISTOW
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :13/07/2009
O R D E R
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.