{"id":167267,"date":"1999-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999"},"modified":"2018-06-08T18:56:11","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T13:26:11","slug":"vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999","title":{"rendered":"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: Mohapatra.J.<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas., D.P. Mohapatra.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVALLAPALTY PLANTATIONS PVT LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/05\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.  THOMAS., D.P. MOHAPATRA.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
MOHAPATRA.J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant  M\/s  Vellapally\tPlantations  Private
\nLimited,  a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956
\nowned a total extent of 130.47 acres of land.\tIt  filed  a
\nreturn\tunder  section\t85A  of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,
\n1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  Act’)  claiming\tthat
\nout  of\t the  total  area  125\tacres  was covered by rubber
\nplantation as on 1st January, 1970, and therefore, is to  be
\nexempted  for  the  purpose  of\t calculation  of the ceiling
\nsurplus land.  The Taluk Land Board (hereinafter referred to
\nas ‘the Board’) Kanjirapally did not accept  the  claim\t for
\nexemption  of  the  land  since\t the area was not covered by
\nplantation as on 1st April,  1964  and\twas  converted\tinto
\nrubber plantation  only\t thereafter.   The Board treated the
\narea In question as “other dry\tland”  for  the\t purpose  of
\ncomputation of ceiling surplus land.  The Board by Its order
\ndated  24.2.1376  determined  the ceiling surplus area to be
\n115.17 acres and directed the  appellant  to  surrender\t the
\nsame.  The said order was challenged by the appellant before
\nthe  Kerala  High  Court  in C.R.P.No.2274\/1976, wherein the
\nlearned single Judge set aside the  order  taking  the\tview
\nthat  companies\t were  introduced in the Act by amendment of
\nSection 82(1)(d) by Act 35 of 1969 which came into force  on
\nJanuary 1, 1970 and that the said date was the relevant date
\nfor  calculation of the selling surplus area in the hands of
\nthe company.  The High Court  remitted\tthe  matter  to\t the
\nTaluk  Land  Board  for\t fresh\tdisposal  with the following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
\t“For  the  foregoing reasons the revision is allowed
\nin part; the impugned order is set aside; and the matter  is
\nremanded  to  the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal in the
\nlight of the observations contained in this  order,  and  in
\naccordance with\t law.\tThe Taluk Land Board would ascertain
\nas to what, if any, is the extent of land covered by  rubber
\nplantation  as\ton  1.1.1970 out of the 130.47 acres held by
\nthe revision petitioner-company, and.\texempt\tsuch  extent
\nalso, besides the extent of 30 cents already exempted, while
\nreckoning the extent of land held by the revision petitioner
\nfor the\t purpose of ceiling area.  There will be no order as
\nto costs.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  Board  by\ta  consequent  order dated 18.5.1979
\nimplementing the order of the High Court held that 125 acres
\nbeing covered  by  rubber  plantation  as  on  1.1.1970\t the
\ncompany\t could not be said to hold any land in excess of the
\nselling limit.\tThe proceeding was dropped.\n<\/p>\n
\tSometime thereafter a Division Bench of\t the  Kerala
\nHigh Court considering a similar question took the view that
\nintroduction   of  section  82(1  )(d)\tin  the\t Act  w.e.f.
\n1.1.1970 has no impact on the applicability  of\t section  82
\n(4), and therefore, conversions of dry land into plantations
\nafter  1.4.1964\t had  to  be  ignored  for  the\t purpose  of
\ncomputation  of\t the  ceiling  area  even  in  relation\t  to
\ncompanies vide\tKuruvila Vs.  Taluk Land Board, 1980 KLT 53.
\nThe High Court placed reliance on a decision of.  this Court
\nin Mathew Vs.  Taluk Land Board 1979 KLT 601.  The resultant
\nposition was that  the\tdecision  of  the  Single  Judge  in
\nVallapally Plantations case (supra) stood overruled.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  Board  in\texercise  of its power under section
\n35(9) of the Act issued a  notice  to  the  company  seeking
\nre-opening of the proceeding and for re-determination of the
\nceiling\t surplus  land\tin  the light of the decision of the
\nDivision Bench in  Kuruvilla  case  (supra).\tThe  Company
\nraised\tobjection  against  the attempt at re-opening of the
\nproceeding contending  that  the  decision  of\tthe  learned
\nsingle\tJudge  in  Vallapally  Plantations  case (supra) had
\nattained finality inter parties and could not  be  re-opened
\nin  exercise  of  the  power under section 85(9) of the Act.
\nThe contention found favour with majority of the Board which
\nby order dated 20.2.1982 dropped the proceeding holding that
\nit had no jurisdiction to re-open the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State challenged  the  said\t order\tin  revision
\nbefore the High\t Court in C.R.P.  No.562\/83.  Placing strong
\nreliance  on  the  language  of\t section  85(9)\t the   State
\ncontended  that\t in  view  of  the wide powers vested in the
\n(Board under the section there was no bar for it to exercise
\nthe said power in the case on hand even if  the\t proceedings
\ninter-parties  had  engaged  the attention of the High Court
\nand the<\/p>\n
\tTaluk  Board  had  only passed a consequential order
\nagainst the company carrying out the directions of the\tHigh
\nCourt in  the  remand order.  The High Court by its judgment
\ndated 16.10.1993 accepted the stand taken by the State,\t sot
\naside  the  order of the Board and remitted the matter to it
\nfor fresh disposal in accordance with law to  ascertain\t the
\nextent of land, if any, held by the company in excess of the
\nceiling limit.\t  The  said order is under challenge in this
\nappeal filed by the company.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe thrust of  the  submissions\t of  Shri  Vinod  A.
\nBobde, learned senior counsel for the appellant was that the
\njudgment  of  the  High Court in the Civil Revision Petition
\nNo.2274\/96 having not been challenged  before  any  superior
\nCourt had  attained finality between the parties.  The order
\nof the Board dated  20.2.1982  was  merely  a  consequential
\norder  passed  in compliance of the order of the High Court.
\nIn such circumstances, submitted the  learned  counsel,\t suo
\nmoto  power  vested  in the Board to re-open the proceedings
\ncould not be exercised.\t According to  the  learned  counsel
\ntaking\ta  view otherwise would result in unsettling settled
\ndecisions between the parties and will create confusion\t and
\nchaos,<\/p>\n
\tShri G.\t Viswanatha  lyer,  learned  senior  counsel
\nappearing  for\tthe  respondent; on the other hand contended
\nthat the remand order  passed  by  the\tHigh  Court  in\t the
\nrevisional proceeding between the parties is no bar for this
\nCourt to consider the correctness or otherwise of the notice
\nissued by  the Board seeking to re-open the proceeding.\t The
\nlearned counsel submitted that unless this  Court  comes  to
\nhold  that  the decision in the case of Kuruvila (supra} was
\nwrongly decided there is no escape from the  legal  position
\nthat  the order passed by the Board holding that the company
\nwas not in possession of any surplus land is erroneous,\t and
\ntherefore,  the\t Board\twas  right in issuing the notice for
\nre-opening the proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  core  question that arises for determination in
\nthe case is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
\nthe  case  the\tBoard  can  re-open  the   proceedings\t for
\ndetermination  of  ceiling  surplus  land on the ground that
\nsubsequent to the final order passed in the  proceeding\t the
\nposition  of  the  law has undergone a change in view of the
\nlater decision of the High  Court  taking  a  contrary\tview
\nregarding the legal position.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore\tadverting  to the point for determination it
\nwill be convenient to notice some statutory provisions which
\nare relevant for the present purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 2 (56A) defines ‘Taluk Land Board’ to mean a
\nTaluk Land Board constituted under Section  100A.    Section
\n100  A\tprovides,  inter alia, that the Government shall, by
\nnotification in the Gazette, constitute a Taluk\t Land  Board
\nfor  each Taluk in the State for performing the functions of
\nthe Taluk Land Board under this Act.  In section 100 C it is
\nlaid down “that for the purpose of performing its  functions
\nunder  this  Act,  the\tTaluk  Land Board shall have all the
\npowers of a civil court while trying a suit under  the\tCode
\nof  Civil  Procedure, 1908, in respect of matters enumerated
\nin the section.\n<\/p>\n
\tChapter III  of\t the  Act  contains  the  provisions
\nregarding  restrictions\t of ownership and possession of land
\nin excess of ceiling  area  and\t disposal  of  excess  land.
\nSection 81 to 98 A are included in that Chapter.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 82.  which contains the provisions regarding
\nceiling area provides in sub-section clause (d) that in case
\nof any other person, other than a Joint family, ten standard
\nacres, so however that the ceiling area shall  not  be\tless
\nthan twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn sub-section (4) it is laid down that where, after
\nthe commencement of this Act, any class of land specified in
\nSchedule  II has been converted into any other class of land
\nspecified in that Schedule or into a plantation, the  extent
\nof  land  liable  to  be  surrendered  by a person owning or
\nholding such land shall be determined  without\ttaking\tinto
\nconsideration such conversion.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  Section  83 it is provided that with effect from
\nsuch date as may  be  notified\tby  the\t Government  in\t the
\nGazette,  no  person  shall be entitled to own or hold or to
\npossess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of
\nthe ceiling area.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 85(1) provides that where a person  owns  or
\nholds  land  in\t excess\t of  the  ceiling  area\t on the date
\nnotified  under\t section  83,  such  excess  land  shall  be
\nsurrendered as provided under the said sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder  sub-section  (5) of the said section power is
\nvested in the Taluk Land Board- (a) to cause the particulars
\nmentioned in the statement to be verified  ;  (b)  ascertain
\nwhether\t the  person  to whom the statement relates, owns or
\nholds any other lands;\tand  (c)  by  order,  determine\t the
\nextent and identity of the land to be surrendered.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn sub-section (3) provision is made that where\t the
\nBoard determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by
\nany  person  without  hearing  any  person  interested, such
\nperson\tmay,  within  sixty  days  from\t the  date  of\tsuch
\ndetermination,\tapply  to  the Taluk Land Board to set aside
\nthe order and, if he satisfies the Taluk Land Board that  he
\nwas  prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before
\nthe Taluk Land Board it shall set aside the order and  shall
\nproceed\t under\tsub-section  (5)  of sub-section (7), as the
\ncase may be.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section   (9)   of\tsection\t 85  which  is\tvery
\nimportant for the purpose of the case is  quoted  hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“(9)  The  Taluk  Land Board may, at any time, set aside Its
\norder under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as the\tcase
\nmay  be,  and proceed afresh under that sub-section if it is
\nsatisfied that –\n<\/p>\n
(a) the extent of lands surrendered by, or assumed  from,  a
\nperson\tunder  section\t86  is less than the extent of lands
\nwhich he was liable to surrender  under\t the  provisions  of
\nthis Act, or<\/p>\n
(b)  the lands surrendered by, or assumed from, a person are
\nnot lawfully owned or held by him; or<\/p>\n
(c) in a case where a person is, according  to\tsuch  order,
\nnot  liable to surrender any land, such person owns or holds
\nlands in excess of the ceiling area.\n<\/p>\n
PROVIDED  that\tthe Taluk Land Board shall not set aside any
\norder under this  sub-section  without\tgiving\tthe  persons
\naffected thereby an opportunity of being heard:\n<\/p>\n
PROVIDED  further  that\t the  Taluk  Land  Board  shall\t not
\ninitiate  any  proceedings  under this sub-section after the
\nexpiry of seven years from  the\t date  on  which  the  order
\nsought to be set aside has become final.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 1 – For the removal of doubts, it  is  clarified
\nthat  the  references  in  this subsection to the Taluk Land
\nBoard shall, in cases in which the  order  under  subsection
\n(5) or sub-section (7) has been passed by the Land Board, be
\nconstrued as references to the Land Board.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 2 – For the purposes of this section and section
\n86, “hold” with reference to land  shall  include  “possess”
\nland under mortgage with possession.\n<\/p>\n
In  Sub-section 9A, which was inserted by Kerala Land Reform
\n(Amendment) Act, 1989 w.e.f.  30th May, 1989 power is vested
\nin Taluk Land Board  to\t review\t its  decision.\t   The\tsaid
\nsection\t provides  inter  alia that notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in this Act or in the Limitation Act, 1963  or  in
\nany  other  Act\t for  the  time\t being\tin  force  or in any
\njudgment, decree or order of any court or  other  authority,
\nthe  Taluk  Land  Board\t may,  if  it  is satisfied that its
\ndecision  under\t sub-section  (5)  or  sub-section  (7)\t  or
\nsub-section  (9)  requires to be reviewed on the ground that
\nsuch decision has been made due to the\tfailure\t to  produce
\nrelevant  data or other particulars relating to ownership or
\npossession before it,  or  by  collusion  or  fraud  or\t any
\nsuppression  of\t material  facts  the  Taluk  Land Board may
\nreview such decision after  giving  an\topportunity  to\t the
\nparties\t of being heard and pass such orders as it may think
\nfit.  In the proviso a period of limitation of 3 years\tfrom
\nthe  date  of  coming  into  force  of\tKerala\tLand Reforms
\n(Amendment) Act, 1989 is  prescribed  whereafter  the  Taluk
\nLand Board shall not reopen any such case.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection\t  86  sub-section  (1)\twhich  contains\t the
\nprovision regarding vesting of\texcess\tland  in  Government
\nprovides  that\ton the determination of the extent and other
\nparticulars of the lands, the  ownership  or  possession  or
\nboth  of which is or are to be surrendered under section 85,
\nthe ownership or possession or both, as the case may be,  of
\nthe  land shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, vest
\nin the Government free from all encumbrances and  the  Taluk
\nLand Board  shall  issue  an order accordingly.\t The further
\nsteps to be taken by the  person  concerned  and  the  other
\nconsequences  to  follow are enumerated in the provisions of
\nthe said section.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 103 of the Act which vests power of revision
\nin the High Court provides under subsection (1) thereof that
\nany person aggrieved by any final order of  the\t Taluk\tLand
\nBoard  under the Act may prefer a petition to the High Court
\nagainst the order on the ground that the appellate authority
\nor the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board as  the  case\t may
\nbe, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any
\nquestion of   law.     ln  a  petition\tfor  revision  under
\nsub-section (1) the Government shall be made a\tparty.\t  In
\nsubsection  1B\tprovision  is  made  that the Government may
\nwithin such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition for
\nrevision to the High Court against any final order  referred
\nto  In\tsub-section  (1), on any of the grounds mentioned in
\nthat sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may be relevant to state here that section 125 of
\nthe  Act  in  which  provision\tis  made  regarding  bar  on
\njurisdiction  of  Civil\t Courts\t it is laid down inter alia,
\nthat no civil  court  shall  have  jurisdiction\t to  settle,
\ndecide\tor deal with any question or to determine any matter
\nwhich is by or under this Act required to be settled by\t the
\nTaluk Land  Board.    In the proviso an exception is made to
\nproceedings pending in any Court at the time of commencement
\nof the Kerala  Land  Reforms  (Amendment)  Act,\t 1969.\t  In
\nsub-section  (2) of the said Section it is laid down that no
\norder by the Taluk Land Board made under the  Act  shall  be
\nquestioned in any civil court except as provided in the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom  the statutory provisions referred to above the
\nposition is clear that in matters relating to  determination
\nof  ceiling  surplus land in the hands of a person the Board
\nis vested with the power to determine all disputes  and\t the
\norder  passed by the Board is subject to a revision petition
\nwhich may be filed by any person aggrieved by the Government
\nbefore the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tConsidering the question regarding applicability  of
\nsection\t 85(3)\tto  the\t case  in  hand in the conspectus of
\nstatutory provisions we are of the view that answer  to\t the
\nquestion is  in\t the  negative.\t   The\tprovision in section
\n85(9), as we see it, is intended to enable the Board to\t set
\naside its order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7), as
\nthe case  may  be.   The power vested in the Board under the
\nprovision is in wide terms, and therefore, the necessity for
\ncircumspection in exercise of the power.  The  provision  is
\nintended  to  empower  the  Board  to  correct errors in its
\norders and not to upset judgment\/order\/decree  of  competent
\ncourts which  are binding on the parties.  To hold otherwise
\nwill amount to\tvesting\t powers\t to  reopen  any  proceeding
\ndisposed of by a competent court at any point of time (there
\nis  no\tperiod\tof limitation provided in the section) which
\nmay result  in\tunsettling  positions  settled\tbetween\t the
\nparties.   On  a  fair\treading of the provision it is to be
\nheld that the power to set aside  its  order  and  reopen  a
\nproceeding  should  be\texercised by the Board in a fair and
\nreasonable manner.  In a case where  the  dispute  on  being
\ndetermined  by\tthe Taluk Land Board was carried in revision
\nto  the\t High  Court  by  the  person  affected\t or  by\t the
\nGovernment and the revisional order passed by the High Court
\nwas  not  challenged before superior Court and thus attained
\nfinality, to vest the power  in\t the  Taluk  Land  Board  to
\nignore\tsuch  an order and reopening the proceeding will not
\nonly result in\tunsettling  settled  positions\tbetween\t the
\nparties but also go against judicial discipline.\n<\/p>\n
\tNo  doubt  in  the  present  case the order that was
\nsought to be set aside was of the Board.  But the said order
\nwas passed in pursuance to the directions of the High  Court
\nin the\trevision  petition.  In other words in substance and
\nin effect, in passing the order the Board was only complying
\nwith the direction of the High Court.  To vest\tjurisdiction
\nin  the\t Board to set aside such an order will be permitting
\nthe Board to interfere with the decision of the\t High  Court
\nwhich has attained finality inter-parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tA somewhat similar question arose before this  Court
\nIn  the\t case  of  Authorised  Officer\t(Land  Reforms)\t Vs.
\nM.M.Krishnamurthy Chetty (JT 1998(7) SC 503 ).\tIn that case
\nabout  4.81  standard  acres  of  land\tbelonging   to\t the
\nrespondent were\t declared  surplus.    Ultimately the matter
\ncame to the High Court.\t The Learned Judge of the High Court
\nset  aside  the\t order\tand  remanded  the  case  for  fresh
\nconsideration in the light of the judgment of the High Court
\nin the\tcase  of Naganath Aiyer Vs.  Authorised Officer 1984
\nLW 69.\tWhile the matter was pending before  the  authorised
\nofficer the Supreme Court reversed the aforesaid judgment in
\nthe case of  Authorised Officer Vs.  S.\t Naganatha, AIR 1973
\nSC 1487.  The authorised officer decided the  proceeding  in
\nthe light  of  the  Judgment of the Supreme Court.  The land
\nholder went in revision before the  High  Court\t challenging
\nthe order  of  the  Authorised\tofficer.   A stand was taken
\nbefore the High Court that the order of remand passed by the
\nHigh Court directing the authorised officer  to\t decide\t the
\ndispute\t in  respect of the ceiling area in the light of the
\njudgment of  the  High\tCourt  was  not\t challenged  by\t the
\nAuthorised  Officer  before the Supreme Court and as such it
\nhad become final.  In other words the Authorised officer was
\nbound by the order of remand passed by the High Court and it
\nwas not open to\t the  Authorised  Officer  to  consider\t the
\ndispute\t in  respect of the selling area in the light of the
\njudgment of the Supreme Court.\tThe High Court accepted this
\ncontention ana allowed the civil revision filed by the\tland
\nholder the  respondent.\t  This court confirming the order of
\nthe High Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The order passed by the High  Court  directing\t the
\nAuthorised  Officer  to\t examine the dispute in the light of
\nthe judgment of the High Court in the case of Naganatha Iyar
\nVs.  Authorised Officer became final although  the  judgment
\non  which  the\tgrievance  had\tto  be\texamined  itself was
\nreversed later by this Court.  We find\tno  fault  with\t the
\nreasoning  of  the  High Court, it is well settled that even
\norders which may not be strictly legal become final and\t are
\nbinding\t between  the  parties\tif  they  are not challenged
\nbefore the superior courts.  In the result the appeal  fails
\nand it is dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOn giving our anxious consideration  to\t the  entire
\nmatter\twe  have no hesitation to hold that on the facts and
\nin the circumstances  of  the  case  the  Taluk\t Land  Board
\nrightly held that it had no power to reopen to proceeding in
\nexercise  of the powers vested in section 85(9) and the High
\nCourt was in<\/p>\n
error  in  interfering with the said order of the Taluk Land
\nBoard.\tIn the result the appeal is allowed.   The  impugned
\norder  of  the\tHigh Court is set aside and the order of the
\nTaluk Land Board dropping the proceeding under section 85(9)
\nof the Act is restored.\t There will, however, be  no  orders
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999 Author: Mohapatra.J. Bench: K.T. Thomas., D.P. Mohapatra. PETITIONER: VALLAPALTY PLANTATIONS PVT LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/05\/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS., D.P. MOHAPATRA. JUDGMENT: MOHAPATRA.J. The appellant M\/s Vellapally Plantations Private Limited, a company registered under […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-08T13:26:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T13:26:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3386,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999\",\"name\":\"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T13:26:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-08T13:26:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999","datePublished":"1999-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T13:26:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999"},"wordCount":3386,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999","name":"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T13:26:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vallapalty-plantations-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-may-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vallapalty Plantations Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167267","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}