One Earth One Life (Reg.No.S.246/1988) vs State Of Kerala

BY ADV.SRI. PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO & SRI. P.M.SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM,PIN 695 001. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 15

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 001.

4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

6 STATE LAND BOARD OFFICE COMPLEX, ASTHAMANGALAM ROAD,OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 010.

7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE (DT),PIN-600 001.

8 THE TALUK LAND BOARD KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DT.,PIN-673 614.

9 DISTRICT REGISTRAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DT.,PIN-673 002.

10 THE SUB REGISTRAR BALISSERY, KOZHIKODE DT.,PIN-673 612.

11 THE SUB REGISTRAR THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DT.,PIN-673 573.

12 THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES INDUSTRIES LTD. COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.,21, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001,WEST BENGAL, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 16

13 C.P. SHARMA DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTIRES LTD.,21, STRAND ROAD KOLKATA-700 001, WEST BENGAL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. SATHYANARAYAN SHARMA, JAGATDAL BABU QTR NO. 33, 24 PARGANAS (NORTH) KOLKATA-743 125.

14 P.K. ANWAR S/O. P.K.C. AHAMMEDKUTTY,AGED 27 YEARS, PARAKANDY, UNNIKULAM P.O.,UNNIKULAM AMSOM, KANTHAPURAM DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT.,PIN-673 305.

15 C.KUHUMUHAMMED S/O. VEERANKUTTY, CHERUTHODI HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

16 T. GOVINDANKUTTY S/O. KOMAPPAN NAIR, THUMBRAKKUZHIYIL,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

17 T. MUHAMMED ALI S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, THANKAYATHIL HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

18 M. NARAYANAN S/O. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, MOKAYIKKAL HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

19 T.T. AMMED S/O. MUHAMMED, THOTTITHODY HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

20 P. KHADER S/O. AMMED, POYIL HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

21 P.P. CHANDUKKUTTY S/O. KELUKKUTTY, PULIKKUZHY HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 17

22 T. ABOOBACKER S/O. MOOSA, THOTTITHODI HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O. UNNIKULAM-673 574.

23 V. KHALID S/O. KUNHAMMED HAJI, VILLAN HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O. UNNIKULAM-673 574.

24 V. UMMER S/O. MOOSA, VELLIKKUNNU HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

25 A.K. UMMER S/O. ABU, AMBALAKKUTHU HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

26 P. HAMZA S/O. MUHAMMED, PAIKKADAN HOUSE,M.M.PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

27 A. KUNHIMUHAMMED S/O. ABU, AMBALAKUTHU HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

28 K. RAMANKUTTY S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KARAMMAL HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

29 K. BALAN S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, KARINTHORAMMAL HOUSE,EKAROOL P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

30 P. KUNHUMUHAMMED S/O. MUHAMMED, PAIKKADAN HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

31 T. BALAKRISHNAN S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, KOTTAKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE,M.M. PARAMBA P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

32 E. VASU S/O. KELU, MANDOTH MALAYIL HOUSE,'KANNADIPOYIL P.O.,BALUSSERY-673 612. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 18

33 P. SREEDHARAN S/O. SEKHARAN NAIR, POUIL HOUSE,EKAROOL P.O., UNNIKULAM-673 574.

34 K.M. SURENDRAN S/O. NARAYANAN, KEYATTUMEETHAL HOUSE,THALAYAD P.O., PIN-673 574.

BY ADVS. R1 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY R2 TO 9 BY ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI RANJITH THAMPAN & SR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI A.J. VARGHESE

R22, 23, 24 & 25 BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER & SMT.C.K.SHERIN

R12 BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019,ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.28496/2016,6815/2016, WP(C).8950/2015, THE COURT ON 27.2.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 19

[ WP(C) No. 28496 of 2016,WP(C)No.6815 of2016 WP(C)No.8950 of 2015, WP(C)No.22195of 2017 ]

Common judgment

Shircy V.,J.

A voluntary organization by name 'one earth one life'

registered under the Travancore Cochin Scientific Literary

and Charitable Societies Act has come up with Writ Petition

(C)No.28496/2016 for a declaration that the fragmentation

and sale of Kinalur estate, (hereinafter referred to as the

estate) a rubber plantation for non-plantation purposes, by

the 10th respondent, M/s.Cochin Malabar and Industries Ltd.,

(hereinafter referred to as the 'company'), is illegal as it will

defeat the purpose of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The

petitioner is also challenging a Notification of the State

Government dated 27.11.2015 granting exemption of stamp WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 20

duty for registration of sale deeds in respect of private sale

causing a loss of Rs.2,39,56,220/- to the State Exchequer.

2. Facts, relevant, are stated in brief:-

The estate is a rubber plantation having a total extent of

2438 acres (987.27 hectares)comprised in re-survey Nos.94,

95/1, 102/2, 103,104,105/1, 105/4, 108, 109, 110, 111,

112, 113, 114/1, 114/3 of Kinalur village, R.S.No.2000/2,

2000/5, 1996/2, 1985/2, 1981/1, 1981/3, 1640/3, 1644,

1648/2, 1670/3, 1671/2, 1522/2, 2026/4 of Kanthalad

village, R.S. 1/1, 1/3, 1/5,3, 117/1, 118/A of Unnikulam

Village. R.S.No.1/2, 1/3 of Raroth Village, R.S.No.81, 83/1,

83/4, 83/5, 84, 85 of Kozhikode District. Respondent No.10,

the company is the owner of the estate. This estate comes

under the exempted category under the provisions of Kerala

Land Reforms Act (for short 'KLR Act')as it is a rubber

plantation. Due to some financial problems in the year 2001

the company decided to sell 450 acres which constitute the

Thamarassery Division of Kinalur estate and the said idea WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 21

was conveyed to one Sri. Jose Kynadi, the 12th respondent

who is engaged in the real estate business and his business

partner Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty. The company appointed

the 12th respondent as a labour consultant to the company,

for a period of one year on 1.2.2002 as per Ext.P1 to advise

the company in the matters regarding the settlement of

dues of its employees The respondents 14 to 17 are the

recognized workers Union of the estate. Later the company

decided to sell the entire estate as per its resolution dated

7.9.2002. Consequently, on 27.7.2003 the company entered

into an agreement with Sri P.K.C.Ahammedkutty, he being

the highest bidder for sale of the entire estate for a sale

consideration of Rs.31.10 Crores. The dispute of the laborers

with the company was also amicably settled on 28.2.2003 as

per Ext.P2 settlement agreement. As per Ext.P2, the

company has to pay all the statutory liabilities of the

permanent workers, including gratuity as the workers

agreed to resign voluntarily from the estate. In addition to WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 22

the above the company has to pay to all permanent workers

10 days' salary per year for the number of completed years

of service per worker as ex gratia. All permanent workers

will be paid ex-gratia at the rate of 25 days' salary for every

year for the remaining service up to the completion of the

age of 58 years. It was also agreed by the purchaser Sri

P.K.C.Ahammedkutty that the permanent workers on the

rolls of the estate staying in the labor line will be given an

extent of 3 cents of land in the labour line and 100 cents of

land elsewhere and permanent workers who do not stay in

labour line will be given 103 cents. The workers have to bear

the stamp duty, registration and documentation charges to

register the land as per the settlement. This agreement itself

is illegal as it was made with an intention to fragment the

estate and to sell it to strangers under the guise of settling

the dispute of the workers. On 28.2.2003, 10 th respondent

issued Ext.P3 letter to the Regional Joint Labour

Commissioner, Calicut stating that the company decided to WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 23

sell the estate after settling all the liabilities of the workers

as per law and the compensation will be paid by Sri P.K.C.

Ahammedkutty, who is the proposed purchaser of the

estate. Thereafter, C.A.No.75/2003 was also filed before the

Company Law Board seeking permission to conclude the

sale of the properties in terms of the decision of the Board of

Directors. The said application was disposed of on 7.11.2003

by Ext.P4.

3. Thereafter the company filed I.A.No.1464/2003 in

O.A.No.167/2000 on the files of the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

Ernakulam, to conduct the sale of Kinalur estate in terms of

the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 7.9.2002,

but by Ext P5 the application was dismissed on 12.5.2004 as

the bidder had not deposited the bid amount. Thereafter two

shareholders of the 10th respondent company filed

O.S.No.131/2005 on the files of the Sub Court, Kozhikode

for a decree of declaration that the company had no right to

sell the estate in the light of the order of the Company Law WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 24

Board and for injunction to restrain the sale of the estate.

As per an order dated 8.7.2005 in I.A.No.1329/2005 in

O.S.No.131/2005, the company was restrained from selling

the estate to Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty or to strangers. As

per Ext.P6 order dated 24.11.2005 in I.A.No.2546/2005, a

receiver was also appointed and he was put in possession

of the properties. The said orders were challenged before

the District Court, Kozhikode but the same were dismissed

by a common Judgment. The said judgment was challenged

before this Court through Writ Petition(W.P.(C)

No.3417/2006) but it was also dismissed. Later

O.S.No.131/2005 on the files of the Sub Court, Kozhikode

was withdrawn to this Court and it was numbered as

Company Case No.7/2006 in Company Petition No. 49/2004.

Due to the pendency of the said petition, this Court by

Ext.P7 ordered that any person found to be in possession of

any portion of the estate would have to be dispossessed

unless he is in occupation under the control of the Receiver. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 25

Later the company petition was dismissed and the company

case was also dismissed holding that the cause of action

does not survive since the recovery order issued by the

Debt Recovery Tribunal had been duly discharged. The stand

of the Government that by virtue of Section 81 of the KLR

Act, the company cannot claim any benefit in view of the

change of nature of the user of the land. While so by Ext P8

letter the company intimated the Receiver that the company

has neither agreed nor has any liability to allot land to the

workers and it is only Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty had

promised to give 1.03 acres of land to the workers

somewhere else and he has not acquired title and he cannot

sell the estate to the workers. The company also intimated

that there were 41 Supervisors and 415 workers as on

31.3.2003. As Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty failed to pay the

balance amount the agreement was terminated by the

company. Later the 6th respondent, the Taluk Land Board (for

short 'TLB') issued a letter to the 8 th respondent Sub WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 26

Registrar, Balussery directing not to register the sale deeds

relating to transfer of land in respect of the estate as it was

intended to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act. A public

notice was also issued by the Director of the company

stating that Sri. P.K.C.Ahammedkutty or his partner Sri. Jose

Kainady along with former Director one Rajendra Kanthilal

are intending to sell portions of the estate though they have

no right or authority to sell the estate or to enter into any

agreement for sale of the estate. However, Sri

P.K.C.Ahammedkutty entered into several agreements for

sale of the estate before he acquired title and he executed

and registered 119 sale deeds before the District Registrar,

Kozhikode, 220 sale deeds before the 9th respondent and

140 sale deeds before the 8th respondent in violation of the

order of the 7th respondent. So it was clear that the

plantation was fragmented for non-plantation. Thereupon

the TLB Koyilandi initiated suo motu proceedings under

Section 87 of the KLR Act against the company directing to WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 27

surrender 335 acres. The company contended that the

agreement was cancelled with Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty and

the company had no intention to convert the estate.

Thereafter, a meeting was held on 11.1.2012 by the

Additional Labour Commissioner for registering the land in

the name of the workers and Ext.P9 letter was issued. Due

to the high political influence of respondent No.12 and the

purchasers of the estate and the unholy alliance of the land

mafia, a meeting was held on 20.3.2012 headed by the then

Chief Minister Sri.Oommen Chandy, then Electricity Minister

Aryadan Muhammed and Sri.Kunjalikutty and Minister for

Labour, Sri.Shibu Baby Goerge, MLA and the Labour

Commissioner in which it was decided to permit the

fragmentation of the estate and to register the sale deeds in

favour of persons in possession and to exempt the

registration charges and also to grant income tax exemption,

if the management submits an application for the same.

Ext.P10 is the copy of the minutes. This decision was not at WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 28

all in public interest and it was only to help the land mafia

and the private persons with ulterior motive. Consequently,

the TLB dropped the proceedings holding that no land was

converted into non exempted category. However, the 6 th

respondent intimated the 8th respondent that the prohibition

not to register the sale deeds relating to transfer of land in

respect of the estate is not lifted and it is valid until the

proceedings of the TLB is approved by the State Land Board.

The Sub Registrar, Thamarassery/the 8th respondent issued

Ext P13 letter to the District Registrar making it clear that

no further orders had been issued in the matter or lifting the

prohibition order regarding the registration of sale deeds in

respect of Kinalur estate. The State Land Board requested

the Government to file revision but the then Advocate

General gave opinion that there is no scope for filing

revision. In the meanwhile on 10.12.2012 Sri.

P.K.C.Ahammedkutty died. Respondent No.13 is his legal

heir. Then on 20.8.2013 the company, Sri. Jose Kynadi, the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 29

12th respondent along with respondent No.13 entered into a

settlement agreement regarding the sale of the estate for a

sale consideration of Rs.55,54,97,251/- and that the Board

of Directors authorised one C.P.Sharma on 7.10.2013 to

execute conveyance deeds for sale of the estate to the legal

heirs or nominees of Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty. Thereafter, a

representation was submitted to the then Chief Minister by

the 11th respondent/a Trade Union for granting exemption to

540 workers from paying stamp duty for the lands to be

registered in their name. That request was quite contrary to

the terms and settlement mentioned earlier that the

labourers will bear the expenses for stamp duty and

registration charges. According to the company, there were

only 456 workers in service as on 31.3.2003. However, in

the representation submitted before the Chief Minister, 84

workers had also been added. Thereafter, the Additional

Secretary to Government Taxes Department submitted a

report stating that a loss of Rs.2,39,56,220/- will be caused WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 30

to the revenue exchequer, if the workers are exempted from

paying the stamp duty. But the Chief Minister and the Law

Minister ordered that since there was an agreement with the

management and Trade Unions that 1.03 acres of land will

be registered in the name of 533 workers as service benefits

and the workers have already remitted stamp duty in 2005

at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- each, they cannot afford to pay

the same again. In fact, there is no such agreement with the

workers and management and no enquiry was conducted to

verify whether 533 workers had paid stamp duty in 2005.

4. However, the Council of Ministers on 5.3.2014

decided to grant exemption of stamp duty of

Rs.2,39,56,220/- for registration of sale deeds in respect

of 533 workers, when it was placed for consideration.

Thereafter, on 24.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 the 3 rd

respondent had discussion with the State Land Board WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 31

Secretary, Land Revenue Commissioner and the Inspector

General of Registration regarding the legal problems and

thereafter it was decided that it is not legally possible to

transfer the property directly in the name of workers and

that only after the Government acquire the same, it can be

assigned as per the provisions of KLR Act,and if the land is

assigned as per the special permission of the Government,

the question of granting exemption from remitting the stamp

duty does not arise and to place the matter before the

Revenue and the Law departments with permission of the

Chief Minister for taking decision for resuming the estate to

the Government (Ext.P16). The Chief Minister again directed

the 5th respondent to examine whether the non-registration

of sale deeds in respect of the lands in the name of workers

of estate would not amount to denial of equity as the sale

deeds in respect of the lands in the name of 479 agriculturist

had been already registered. The State Land Board

Secretary, Land Revenue Commissioner and the inspector WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 32

General of Registration pointed out that the estate cannot

be fragmented. It was pointed out by the 3 rd respondent

that some workers have already got their sale deeds

registered without any exemption of stamp duty. The 3rd

respondent also requested to review the decision of the

Cabinet Ministers for granting exemption of stamp duty. This

view was endorsed by the Principal Secretary cf Finance

Department and the Chief Secretary. Thereafter, the Law

Minister ordered that there is no necessity to place the issue

again before the Cabinet and the Chief Minister endorsed the

view. Thereafter, on 27.11.2015 the 3 rd respondent issued

Ext.P18 G.O.(P)No.208/205/TD remitting the stamp duty

chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 on the

instruments of conveyance of an extent of 23025.498 Ares

of land in favour of 464 employees of the estate . Pursuant

to the said G.O, sale deeds are being registered without

paying stamp duty and respondent No.13 is collecting the

sale deeds from the Sub Registry Offices of Balussery and WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 33

Thamarassery and he is handing over the sale deeds to the

workers only after collecting the stamp duty and other

expenses. 30 workers got their sale deeds registered and

another list of workers were forwarded to the Government

by respondent No.12 who is a high profile real estate agent

having high level political connection. It is learnt that after

execution of settlement on 28.2.2003 all the 456 workers

entrusted the stamp duty and registration charges prevailing

upon that time, with the respondent No.12 and he

misappropriated the said amount. In fact he was the only

person benefitted by exemption of stamp duty in favour of

workers. On 1.3.2012 itself the 4th respondent issued

direction to all District Collectors that no plantation

exempted under Section 81(C) of the KLR Act can be

fragmented and sell it for non-plantation purpose and that

no mutation shall be effected in respect of such land and

any attempt to convert plantations shall be reported to the

Government. The State Government is bound to resume WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 34

2438 acres of land in accordance with law as the action of

the company is illegal. The reliefs sought for by this

organization are:

i) Declare that the fragmentation and sale of Kinalur Estate by 10th respondent was illegal and to defeat the purpose of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to Ext.P18 and quash the same.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to take immediate and effective steps to recover 2438 acres of the Kinalur Estate comprised in R.S.No. 94, 95/1, 102/2, 103,104,105/1, 105/4, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114/1, 114/3 of Kinalur village, R.S.No.2000/2, 2000/5, 1996/2, 1985/2, 1981/1, 1981/3, 1640/3, 1644, 1648/2, 1670/3, 1671/2, 1522/2, 2026/4 of Kanthalad village, R.S. 1/1, 1/3, 1/5,3, 117/1, 118/A of Unnikulam, Village. R.S.No.1/2, 1/3 of Raroth Village, R.S.No.81, 83/1, 83/4, 83/5, 84, 85 in Kozhikode District in accordance with law.

(iv)Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising of officers of proven integrity to investigate into the transactions leading to the sale of 2438 acres of the Kinalur WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 35

estate and to prosecute the persons involved in such illegal transactions in accordance with law.

(v)Grant such other reliefs that may be deemed fit to this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.

5. The 4th respondent filed statement inter alia

contending that the TLB, Koyilandy initiated suo motu

proceedings on the basis of the report received from the

authorised officer that certain extent of land from the estate

was sold in pieces and the purchasers slaughtered the

rubber trees and started unauthorised construction. The

State Land Board also authorised the TLB to initiate

proceedings under Section 87 of the KLR Act. The TLB

requested the Sub Registrars not to register sale deeds

invoking their power under Section 120A of the KLR Act.

Then on accepting the contention of company that no land

was converted into non-exempted category, the TLB found

that the Company was not liable to surrender an extent of

335.01 acres as proposed in the draft statement. The WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 36

Company initiated proceedings to sell 450 acres and entered

into agreement with Sri P.K.C.Ahammedkutty. There was a

proposal to transfer 1.03 acres of land to each workers in

discharge of their service benefits and therefore, there was a

request for exemption of stamp duty. The Government

granted exemption to achieve the object of promoting

agriculture as per Annexure R4(a) and to hand over 600

acres of land to 533 employees of the company. The

Company was granted exemption treating the land occupied

by the Company as rubber plantation. But some of the

workers constructed residential house in the land assigned

to them and the Revenue Department needs more time to

enquire about the occupation of the land assigned to the

workers. The Revenue Department objected registration of

sale deeds only to protect the illegal bifurcation of the

plantation.

6. The Respondents 11, 14 and 15 opposed the petition,

inter alia, contending the sale of Kinalur estate was the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 37

subject matter of various litigations and all those cases were

closed by Ext.R11(a)judgment of this Court in Company

Appeal No.6/2010. It is revealed that the 10 th respondent

company in order to free itself of some mounting debts

decided to sell the rubber plantation and the said decision

was questioned by two share holders at various stages but

the court upheld the decision to sell the property. In the

process of sale the company first invited tenders from

various persons and Sri P.K.C.Ahammedkutty was the

highest bidder, who offered a sum of Rs. 31 crores. The said

bid was accepted and as per the agreement dated 27.7.2003

Sri. P.K.C.Ahammedkutty was empowered to sell the estate

in parcels to third parties and made it obligatory on his part

to transfer 1.03 acres of land in favour of the employees of

the estate as retrenchment benefits. Sri.

P.K.C.Ahammedkutty entered into agreement with some

farmers of the locality for the sale of portions of the estate

and substantial portion of consideration was paid to the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 38

company and the farmers were put in possession of their

respective lands. Meanwhile there was a change in the

management of the company and the management was not

initially in favour of the transaction and a suit was filed

before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode by another shareholder

and an injunction order was granted against the registration

of sale deeds, despite the fact that substantive number of

sale deeds, mainly around 600 had already been executed

by one of the Directors and they were about to be presented

for registration. Thereafter the suit was withdrawn to this

Court and disposed of and thus protected the possession of

the farmers and labourers but refused registration of sale

deeds in their favour. Meantime 869 sale deeds executed

became invalid due to non-registration of the sale deeds

within the time allowed and the farmers and labourers who

paid the stamp duty were made to suffer the loss in this

regard and that invited the attention of political parties. The

Labour Minister and the Chief Minister convened several WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 39

meetings to settle the disputes and finally it was decided to

give exemption from payment of stamp duty in favour of

labourers. The allegation that the estate was fragmented to

defeat the KLR Act is not correct as the provisions of the Act

do not indicate that there cannot be fragmentation. The TLB

has found that there is no change in classification of the land

and dropped the proceedings under Section 87 of the Act

initiated against the Company. 479 sale deeds executed in

the name of farmers and 417 executed in favour of

labourers were registered. 32 sale deeds executed in

favour of the legal heirs of workmen, who died during the

period of litigation have also been registered and 47

documents are remaining to be executed as far as labourers

concerned. In the case of legal heirs of deceased workmen,

7 more documents are to be registered. None of these

farmers and labourers are having land beyond ceiling limit.

So also exemption from stamp duty was granted as per the

decision of the Council of Ministers after due application of WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 40

mind and in public interest.

7. Respondent No.16 a registered Trade Union and

Respondent No.17, the Secretary of Jilla State Mazdoor

Union though filed separate counter statements raised

similar contentions and submitted that due to the

intervention Chief Minister and the other Ministers concerned

Ext.P17 to give exemption from payment of stamp duty in

favour of 533 labourers and to register 600 acres of land in

the estate as compensation for retrenchment, loss of

livelihood and employment due to the closure of the

company was made and it was not an illegal order.

8. The respondents 20 to 38 contended that after

disposal of the company appeal, O.S.No.153/2011 was filed

by Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty against the company for specific

performance before the Sub Court, Koyilandy. Later

compromise agreement was executed between the parties

on 7.2.2014 and the suit was decreed as per judgment and

decree dated 26.3.2014 (Exts.R17(d) and (e)) and pursuant WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 41

to the settlement, documents were executed by the

company in favour of several persons including the

respondents.

9. The additional respondents 47 and 48 contended

that they are bona fide purchasers of certain extent of the

property as per Ext.R47(a) and (b). More than 450 sale

deeds were executed in favour of agriculturists and more

than 450 sale deeds in favour of workers of the estate . The

intervention of the Chief Minister, Labour Minister and other

Ministers was as part of settlement to exempt stamp duty

and it was done in a transparent manner.

W.P. (C) 8950/2015

10. This writ petition was filed by one Ravindran

alleging that he is a member of Kulikkileri Tharavad. The

members of the Tharavad were the jenmies of vast extent

of land. Kuroliparambath Thekkadath Madhavan Nair and

K.I.Krishnankutty Nair were brothers and senior most

members of the Tharavad. In the year 1954 as per WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 42

document No.809/1954 they executed Ext.P1 lease deed in

favour of Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. (the

Company) for the land in Re-survey Nos.1 and 3 of

Unnikulam amsom and village, Koyilandy Taluk. The

company was registered for planting and cultivating rubber

tree, tea, coffee, pepper etc. The company obtained an

assignment deed of jenm right of the extent of land covered

by Survey Nos. R.S.3, 116/2, 117 and 118/1A and re-survey

No. 116/2 and 118/1A, as per document No. 2090/72 from

the members of the Tharavad. Though 874.33 acres had

been given on lease for 36 years before expiry of the period

in the year 1972, Ext.P2 document had been executed for

502.15 acres. Steps for recovery of the land are being taken

by the petitioner and his Tharavad in due course. The

petitioner and their family members are the owners of the

properties of 372.18 acres and they have not transferred

that property to any person or to any Company. In the

month of November 2013, one Chandrasekharan a member WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 43

of the Tharavad approached the Village Officer, Unnikulam

to get the certified copy of the Adangal Register. But it was

informed that the said document had been damaged and

destroyed. Thereafter an application was filed before the

Tahsildar, Koyilandy. Vesting of land is not applicable under

the Act to the land given on lease to the Company by the

Tharavad. The Company has a fully developed rubber

plantation. The plantation is exempted under Section 81 of

the Act. It is learnt in the month of November and December

2013 that the parcels of land from 372.18 acres had been

illegally transferred by the Company with the help of Sub

Registrar of Thamarassery to P.K.Anvar. P.K.Anvar had

executed two documents in favour of one P.D.Abraham for

25.9490 hectares as per document No.4968/2013 and

10.11736 hectares of land to one P.D.Abraham as per

document No.5011/2013. The transactions were effected in

connivance with one K.P. Ussain. In the Ceilng Case No.TLB

5/10 before the TLB, the 5 th respondent/ Company stated WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 44

that the land was not sold to Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty as he

deviated from the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding).

But it appears that P.K.C.Ahemmedkutty had permitted

strangers to trespass into the property and to cut and

remove rubber trees from the estate. Cases are pending

before different courts regarding the same. The transfers

were effected illegally and fraudulent documents were

created. The petitioner had filed complaints before the

Director of Vigilance DGP, Trivandrum, but no enquiry has

been conducted by the Department. Hence, this original

petition is filed with the following reliefs:

a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd

respondents to conduct and complete the investigation in

Ext.P9 complaint filed by the petitioner urgently, taking

into account all the relevant facts and the materials to be

collected, urgently with in a time fixed by this Hon'ble

Court.

b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 45

appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd

respondent to file the final report in Ext.P9 complaint

urgently within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

And

c) to issue any other appropriate writ order or

direction as prayed for or deemed just and proper.

W.P.(C) No.6815/2006

11. This writ petition is filed by one Regu Nandanan

Nair seeking direction to the Superintendent of Police, CBI,/

respondent No.4 to conduct investigation of Ext.P16

complaint, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 463,

464, 465, 468 and Section 34 read with Section 120-B of

the Indian Penal Code. This petitioner, a member of

Kulikkileri Tharavad also alleged that there was illegal

transfer of 372.18 acres by the Cochin Malabar Estate and

Industries Ltd., the Company to P.K.Anwar, and others by

the Director C.P.Sharma . So also the transfer of properties WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 46

by Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 to P.D.Abraham by P.K.Anwar are

illegal and if investigation is conducted by the director of

vigilance it will not be fair and proper. So by filing this

petition the following reliefs are sought for:

a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to conduct and complete the investigation in Ext.P16 complaint filed by the petitioner urgently, taking into account all the relevant facts and the materials to be collected, urgently within a time fixed by this Hon'ble court.

b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to file the final report in Ext.P16 Complaint urgently within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

And

c)To issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as prayed for or deemed just and proper.

W.P.(C)No. 22195/2017 12. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.8950/2015 aggrieved by exemption of stamp duty for

registration of sale deeds for the sale of of the estate owned WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 47

by the petitioner and his Tharavad causing a loss of more

than Rs.3 Crores to the State of Kerala and for the inaction

of the State Government in not stopping the fragmentation

of 378.18 acres of land for non-plantation purposes. The

allegations in this writ petition are in similar lines to the

above referred Writ Petitions and sought for to quash

Ext.P23 (Ext.P18 of W.P(C)No.28496 of 2016) G.O.

(P)No.208/2015/TD dated 27.11.2015 issued by the 3 rd

respondent. Hence the writ petition is filed with the following

reliefs:

a) To issue a writ of certiorari, other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P23,

b) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 6 th, 7th and 8th respondents to stop fragmentation and sale of Kinalur Estate by 12th, 13th and 14th respondents finding that it is illegal and to defeat the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964)

c) stay all further proceedings in pursuant to and in implementation of Ext.P23 and to issue a direction to WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 48

respondents 9, 10 and 11 not to register any sale deed (Transfer Deeds) in respect of 372.18 acres of the Kinalur Estate comprised in R.S.No.1 of Unnikulam village, Koyilandy Taluk, Kozhikode Dist., pending disposal of the above writ petition,

d) to pass such orders and directions which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the circumstances of the case.

And

e) to award costs to the petitioners from the respondents.

13. The company (Respondent No.12) has filed counter

affidavit only in W.P.(C)No.22195/2017, inter alia,

contending that there is no law which prohibits

fragmentation and sale of any property in the State of

Kerala. The land developed as Kinalur estate was taken on

lease initially in 1990s. As per Document No.130/1909 an

extent of 1020.90 acres of land was taken from

Kizhakkedath Kovilakam, 1650 acres in Kinalur village was

taken on lease as per Document No.3550/1912, an extent

of 874.33 acres was taken on lease from Kulikkileri

Puthiyaveettil Tharavad as per document No. 153/1919 and WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 49

the lease was renewed as per Ext.P1. Re-survey was

effected and the properties are in Re-survey Nos. 1,3,

116/2, 117 and 118/A. By an inadvertent omission re-

survey No.1 was omitted in Ext.P2 document. If the

petitioner has any claim, he has to establish it in the civil

court. The estate was the subject matter of various

litigation. The company decided to sell the estate in order to

free itself from the mounting debts, to

Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty for Rs.31 crores and agreement

was executed with Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty. But when there

was change in management, new management thought that

the transaction was not beneficial and after the death of

Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty, his legal heirs and purchasers

under him agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.24 crores

and the Ministers including the Chief Minister intervened to

settle the dispute as large number of agriculturists and

labourers were involved and thereafter the Government took

initiative for settlement and thus exemption from stamp WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 50

duty was granted in favour of the labourers. Sale deeds

were executed in favour of farmers and labourers and there

is no legal bar for registration.

14. We have heard Smt. Daisy A.Philipose and Sri.Philip

Antony Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri Haridas P.Nair, learned Central Government Counsel, Sri

Ranjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri

K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney, Sri. A.J.Varghese Senior

Government Pleader, Sri P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior

counsel, Sri.P.B Krishnan, Sri Millu Dandapani, Sri Rakesh

Roshan, Smt. T.P.Sindhumol, Sri. Shaji Thomas, Dr. George

Abraham, Sri D.Kishore and Sri. Sudhi Vasudevan, the

learned counsel for the respondents.

15. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 28496/2016, treating it as

the main petition. The issue involved in all these writ

petitions pertain to the fragmentation of the Kinalur estate,

a rubber plantation for non plantation purpose, having an WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 51

extent of 2438 acres. Ext.P18 Government Notification dated

27.11.2015 to exempt stamp duty on the instruments of

conveyance handed over to the employees as service

benefits by the company is also under challenge. The 10 th

respondent company is the owner of the rubber plantation

known as Kinalur estate. The disputed land is an estate

coming within the meaning of Article 31 A of the Constitution

of India. Article 31A of the Constitution of India reads as

follows:

"31A. Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for

(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or

(b) xx xx xx

(c)xx xx xx

(d) xx xx xx

(e) xx xx xx (2) In this article, -

(a) the expression "estate" shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 52

equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include-

(i) any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the estates of (Tamil Nadu) and Kerala, any janmam right;

(ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement;

(iii) any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillay thereto, including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans."

16. Before we proceed further, it would be

beneficial to refer to the relevant provisions of the Kerala

Land Reforms Act and its objects. KLR Act was promulgated

to enact a comprehensive legislation relating to land reforms

in the State of Kerala. KLR Act was introduced replacing 'The

Kerala Agrarian Relations Act,1960'. Constitutionality of

Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, was challenged before the

Apex Court in Kunhikoman and Others v. State of Kerala

[AIR 1962 SC 723] wherein it was observed that:

'' 7.It is also from the provisions contained in Chapters II & III of the Act that the main purpose of the Act is to do away with intermediaries and to fix a ceiling and give the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 53

excess land, if any, to the landless or those who hold land much below the ceiling. The method employed to carry out this object is first to acquire the land for the State and thereafter to assign it to the cultivating tenants or to the landless or to those with small amounts of land. The main provisions of the Act therefore are clearly within the Legislative competence of the State legislature under item 18 of List II and item 42 of List III and this is not being disputed on behalf of the petitioners .............''.

17. But the Act was held violative of Article 14 on

account of the manner in which the ceiling area was fixed

and the Act was struck down in relation to ryotwari lands

which had come to the State of Kerala from the State of

Madras. Thereupon, the Land Reforms Act was introduced in

the year 1963 by Act 1 of 1964 replacing the existing Act

and it was amended in the year 1969 by Act 35 of 1969. Act

1 of 1964 was included in ninth schedule of the Constitution.

When 1964 Act was amended by Act 35 of 1969, the Act

was challenged by filing numerous writ petitions before this

Court. All those writ petitions were decided together and WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 54

disposed of by a Full Bench of this Court in Narayanan

Nair v. State [AIR 1971 Ker.98 (FB)]. Relevant portion

of paragraph No.41 reads as follows:

"The abolition of landlordisms and the creation of a class of peasant-proprietors making the actual cultivator the owner of the land, in other words, the implementation of the slogan, "Land for the tiller", has always been regarded as a measure of agrarian reform. So has the fixing of a ceiling on the holding of agricultural lands (based on the concept of an economic holding) and the distribution of land held in excess of the ceiling to the landless or to persons holding land below the ceiling. ............."

18. In Malankara Rubber And Produce Co. and

Others v. State of Kerala and Others [AIR 1972 SC

2027=1972 KHC 101], the amendment effected with the

object of preventing the State from acquiring lands in the

possession of the petitioners therein in excess of the ceiling

imposed was challenged. It was made clear that Section 86

provides vesting of excess land in Government which are to

be surrendered under Section 85. It empowers the Land WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 55

Board to call upon persons effected by the ceiling provisions

to surrender the excess lands and in default of compliance to

take possession thereof in the manner prescribed. It was

also held that the provisions of the KLR Act making

discrimination against pepper and areca plantations are bad

only if the lands are not estate and that the lands

interspersed between sites of commercial undertakings and

house sites in municipalities with lands surrounding them

cannot be acquired as the same are not agricultural lands.

Except as above the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms

Act are beyond challenge.

19. In State of Kerala and Others v. K.A.

Gangadharan (AIR 1977 SC 311), the Apex Court

observed that the provisions (Sections 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 &

87) in the KLR Act establish the dominant legislative intent

of the imposition of the ceiling on land holdings and the

consequential obligation to surrender lands owned or held in

excess of the ceiling area on the notified date, namely, 1 st WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 56

January 1970. It was further observed that it is apparent

that S.84 was enacted with a view to make the provisions of

Sections 83 and 85 effective. In Paragraph No.15, it is held

as follows:

''15. .........The obligation to surrender the excess land owned or possessed by a person as on 1 st January 1970 cannot be affected by voluntary transfers even of the excepted varieties mentioned in S.84 of the Act subsequent to the notified date. The transferor will continue to be liable to surrender to the Government the full extent of the excess land that was in his possession as on 1st January 1970."

20. Thus, it is clear that the object of the KLR Act is to

distribute excess land among landless people by taking it

from landlords/ persons holding beyond the ceiling limits It

is also to help cultivation process in a most economic

manner as well to promote agricultural growth. Needless to

say that land reforms imparted drastic changes to economic

and social outlook of the country.

21. Section 2 of the KLR Act deals with the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 57

definitions .Section 2(44) of the Act reads as follows:

"S.2.(44)"plantation" means any land used by a person principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'plantation crops') and includes.-

(a) land used by the said person for any purpose

ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops or for the

preparation of the same for the market;

[(b) xxxx]

(c) agricultural lands interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated by the said person with plantation crops, not exceeding such extent as may be determined by the Land Board [or the Taluk land Board, as the case may be] as necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation.

Explanation:- Lands used for the construction of office buildings, godowns, factories quarters for workmen, hospitals, schools and play grounds shall be deemed to be lands used for the purposes of sub-clause (a);

Section 2 (3) defines ceiling area as follows:

"Ceiling area" means the extent of land specified in section 82 as the ceiling area".

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 58

22. Chapter III of KLR Act deals with restriction on

ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area

and disposal of excess lands. Section 81 included in chapter

III deals with exemptions which reads as follows:

"S.81. Exemptions.-(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to-

(a) lands owned or held by the Government of Kerala or the Government of any other State in India or the Government of India or a local authority (or the Cochin Port Trust) or any other authority which the Government may, in public interest, exempt, by notification in the Gazette, from the provisions of this Chapter [Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease whether current or time expired or otherwise.] xx xx xx xx xx xx

(b) xx xx xx

(c) xx xx xx WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 59

(d) xx xx xx

(e) plantations.

xx xx xx

(2) xx xx xx

(3) xx xx xx

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in

any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or other documents or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or Taluk Land Board or Land Board or other authority, a person holding plantation and lands ancillary thereto or interspersed within such plantation, may use not exceeding five per cent of the extent of such holding for floriculture or for the cultivation of Vanila or medicinal plants or other agricultural crop or for establishing hotels or resorts or other tourism projects and for purposes ancillary or connected therewith.

S.82.Ceiling area.-(1) The ceiling area of land shall be.-

(a) In the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a sole surviving member, five standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than six and more than seven and a half acres in extent;

(b) in the case of a family consisting of two or more but not more than five members, ten standard acres so WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 60

however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent; and

(c)in the case of a family consisting of more than five members, ten standard acres increased by one standard acres for each member in excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than twenty acres in extent; and

(d)in the case of any other person, other than a joint family, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent.

xx xx xx

xx xx xx

(6)In computing the ceiling area, lands exempted under

Section 81 shall be excluded.

23. Certain undisputed facts need to be narrated here

for the proper understanding of the issue involved. The

company had serious financial problems and in order to

overcome the same, the company decided to sell 450 acres

of land which constitute the Thamarassery Division in the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 61

year 2001 and as per Ext.P1 appointed the 12 th respondent

for a period of one year as a labour consultant to advise the

company in the matters regarding settlement of dues of its

employees. Later on 7.9.2002 the company decided to sell

the whole estate. The 12 threspondent was also having

business partnership with one Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty

and he offered the highest bid amount of 31.10 crores. By

Ext.P2 a settlement arrangement was made on 28.2.2003 by

the company and the labour unions with intimation to the

Regional Joint Labour Commissioner as evident by Ext.P3.

Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty is referred as the purchaser who is

entrusted to negotiate and finalize the terms and conditions

of retrenchment benefits due to all the workers. Thereafter,

the company has filed Co.Case No.75 of 2003 seeking

permission to conclude the sale of the properties in terms of

the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 7.9.2002.

That case was disposed of along with some other petitions

as per Ext.P4 order dated 7.11.2003. The relevant portion WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 62

of the order is extracted as follows :

''...... Accordingly unless and until the entire remaining balance of sale consideration for the Kinalur Estate is paid by the purchaser to the credit of the company's bank account towards discharge of its liabilities with banks and financial institutions, the company shall neither convey title to the Kinalur estate nor part with possession either in part or in whole in favour of the purchaser. The company and its Board of Directors shall be jointly and severally responsible for due fulfillment of this stipulation and file an affidavit of compliance within 30 days of completion of the whole dealings as stipulated.''

24. Thereafter, in O.A.No.167/2000 filed by the

Federal Bank Ltd. against the company before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal, the company filed I.A No.1464/2003

seeking permission to conduct the sale of the estate in terms

of the resolution of the Board of Directions dated 7.9.2002.

But the I.A. was dismissed as the bidder of the estate has

not deposited the bid amount as evident by Ext.P5.

Thereafter, two shareholders of the company filed WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 63

O.S.No.131/2005 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode, and a

receiver was appointed to take possession of the estate as

per Ext.P6. But O.S.No.131/2005 was withdrawn by this

Court and numbered as Co.Case No.7/2006 in Company

Petition No.49/2004. By Ext.P7 order this Court has directed

that all the persons found to be in possession are to be

dispossessed unless he is able to show that he is under the

occupation of the receiver. Later the Company Case

No.7/2006 was dismissed by Ext.R11(b) observing that

when the recovery certificate issued is discharged, all

interlocutory orders in the form of interdiction against the

defendants therein (company) or their properties will get

discharged and released. Thus the receiver was released and

the appointment of the District Collector as custodian during

the course of the suit was also vacated. The appeal against

the said judgment was disposed of by Ext.R11(a) on the

finding that there was no reason to interfere with the

judgment of the learned Single Judge.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 64

25. The records reveal that the 1 st agreement between

the company and Sri. P.K.C.Ahammedkutty for sale of the

estate for a total consideration of 31.10 crores was on

27.7.2003 and the labour dispute was settled on certain

terms and conditions such as payment of gratuity, 25 days'

salary for every year for the remaining service up to the

completion of the age of 58 years etc. It is also seen that

Sri. P.K.C.Ahammedkutty further agreed to give 3 cents of

land in the labour line and 100 cents elsewhere, and thus

counting to 1.03 acres of land to the workers and they have

to bear the stamp duty, the registration fee and the

documentation charges to register the land in terms of the

settlement. According to the petitioner, Sri.

P.K.C.Ahammedkutty failed to pay the amount agreed and

hence the company terminated the agreement. But he

entered into several agreements for the sale of the estate

and thus 219 sale deeds were registered before the District

of Kozhikode and 293 sale deeds by the 9 th respondent, 143 WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 65

by the 8th respondent in violation of the order of the District

Collector, the 7th respondent. But it is pertinent to note all

those persons are not before this court.

26. It is also discernible from the records that on

25.1.2012 the Additional Labour Commissioner addressed

the Labour Department to get permission of the Government

for fragmentation of the estate and to withdraw the cases

initiated by the Land Board, by Ext.P9. Thereafter, a meeting

was convened under the leadership of then Chief Minister,

Minister of Electricity, Industries, Labour and Local Members

of Legislative Assembly etc and after deliberations, decided

to permit fragmentation of the estate and to register the sale

deed in favour of workers and, agriculturists who have been

in possession of the estate on assurance that they will not

use the estate property for any other purpose than

agriculture and also to take steps to waive registration tax,

etc.

27. But it is significant to note that in the year 2010 WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 66

the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy initiated suo motu

proceedings against the 10th respondent directing the

company to surrender 335.01 acres of land. It is revealed

from Ext.P11 proceedings of the TLB, that the company

contended that the Memorandum of understanding (MOU)

entered into with Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty had been

cancelled as he did not comply with the terms and that the

company did not execute any sale deed in favour of any

other person. The further contention was that the company

had no intention to convert the land for any other purpose.

Thereafter, TLB by Ext.P11 order dated 20.6.2013 dropped

the proceedings on the finding that the company has not

acquired any excess land by virtue of the provisions in

Section 87 of the KLR Act, which prima facie, appears to be

incorrect. Section 83 of KLR reads as follows.

"S.83 No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area.- With effect from such date as may be notified by the Government in the Gazette, no person shall be WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 67

entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area."

Section 84 deals with transfers effected to defeat the

provisions of the KLR Act.

"S. 84 Certain voluntary transfers to be null and void .-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all voluntary transfers effected after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 in the Gazette, otherwise than

(i)By way of partition;

(ii) xxxxx

(iii) in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before the 27 th July, 1960, and continued to be so till the date of transfer,

(iv) xxx xxxx by a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area (or otherwise than by way of gift in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his pre-deceased son or daughter by any person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area) shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of this Act and shall be invalid.

xx xx xx xx xx xx WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 68

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the

time being in force, all voluntary transfers effected by any person (other than a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person) owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area after the 1st July, 1969, otherwise than-

(i)By way of partition ; or

(ii)in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before the 27th July, 1960, and continued to be so till the date of transfer;

(I) (iii) (xxxx) shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provision of this Act and shall be invalid."

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

sections (1), (1A) or (2), or in any judgment, decree, or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority, no acquisition of land referred to in Section 7E shall be deemed to be invalid, or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that the land so acquired was found included as, or forming part of, the land liable to be surrendered by the transferor as excess land under the provisions of this Act and no suit or other proceedings including proceedings for eviction relating to the said land shall be instituted, maintained or WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 69

continued in any court or Tribunal against any person who is a deemed tenant under Section 7E and every such suit or proceedings pending shall stand abated.

Provided that xxx xxx xxx xxx

Provided further that if the Taluk Land Board is satisfied that the transfer of land made by a person in possession of excess land is calculated to defeat the ceiling provisions, it may take into account the land so transferred in determining his ceiling area, and may direct him to surrender such extent of land held or possessed by him. "

provided also that xxx xxx xxx xxx

Section 87 of the Act deals with the surrender of excess land

obtained by gift, purchase, lease etc after the notified date

ie 1.1.1970:

"S.87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc., to be surrendered.-(1) Where any person acquires any land dafter the date notified under Section 83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 70

Explanation 1-Where any land is exempted by or under Section 81 and such exemption is in force on the date notified under Section 83, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under Section 83.

Explanation II.-Where, after the date notified under Section 83, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or any land exempt under Section 81 from the provisions of this Chapter is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area, shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date.

(1A) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) shall file a statement containing the particulars specified in sub-section (1) of Section 85A within a period of three months of the date of the acquisition.

(2) The provisions of Sections 85 and 86 shall, so far as may be, apply to the vesting in the Government of the ownership or possession or both of the lands required to be surrendered under sub-section (1)."

28. It is pertinent to note that by Act 27 of 1979

Explanation II, to Section 87 was added mainly after the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 71

observation of the learned Single Judge of this Court in

Raghavan v. State of Kerala and others [1977 KLT 57]

that the Explanation I to Section 87 would not be attracted

to a case where categories of land which are exempted on

1.1.70 are converted into non-exempted categories

subsequent to that date. Therefore, no excess land could be

taken from a person holding excess land owing to conversion

of exempted lands into non exempted lands after 1.1.1970.

29. So to overcome the difficultly and to prevent

accumulation of land in the hands of a few and also to

enable the Government to take such excess land Section 87

was amended by adding Explanation II to Section 87 by Act

27 of 1979. It indicates that an exempted land by any kind

'conversion' or 'change of nature of land' exceeds the ceiling

limit, shall be treated and dealt with, as subsequent

acquisition after the notified date and such land shall be

surrendered to achieve the object and spirit of the Act. The

crucial word in Explanation II to Section 87 is therefore WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 72

'conversion'.

30. In Chacko Varghese v Taluk Land Board

[1982 KLT 72], a learned Single Judge of this Court while

dealing with Explanation II to Sec.87 held as follows :

"7. A reading of the above provisions shows that where a land has been converted from one category into another category after 1.1.1970 as laid down in Explanation II, and thereby the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, the land in excess of the ceiling area has to be treated as land acquired after 1.1.1970. Such land has to be surrendered under S.87 of the Act in the same way excess land as on 1.1.1970 has to be surrendered under S.85 of the Act.

8. Explanation II to S.87 of the Act contemplates two types of conversion; one is conversion of a class of land specified in Schedule II into another class of land specified in that schedule and the second is conversion of any land exempt under S.81 from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act into any class of land not so exempt. In the present case we are concerned with the second type of conversion.

9. What is meant by conversion or converting a land from one class to another? When is one class of land said to be converted into another class of land? According to the Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary, "convert" means to WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 73

change or turn from one thing, condition to another; to alter one thing into another; to apply to a particular purpose. Conversion would normally be a conscious and voluntary act. A coconut garden can be converted into paddy field or vice versa or into arecanut or rubber plantation etc. These conversions would be the result of a definite intention on the part of the converter to do so. A person entertains an intention to convert and does an act in furtherance of the intention which results in the alteration of one state of thing into another. Just as the action is important, the intention also is important. That is what has been stressed by this Court in the unreported decisions referred to above. There may also be cases where by utter neglect a plantation is allowed to deteriorate as a result of which it ceases to be a plantation."

31. A Division Bench of this Court in Kurian v. Taluk

Land [1991 (1) KLT 162] observed in para.8 as follows:

"8. .......... The Legislative fiction incorporated in explanations 1 and 2 of S.87 widen the scope of S.87 and thereby even when there is no subsequent acquisition by gift, purchase, mortgage, lease, surrender, transfer, bequest or inheritance or otherwise, but on account of land lawfully exempted ceasing to be exempted, or on account of subsequent change in the nature of land, the holding exceeds the ceiling area, it WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 74

shall be deemed to be on par with subsequent acquisitions to be dealt within the same manner. The above provision discloses a two-pronged approach towards ceiling area. One is that as on the notified date namely, 1-1-1970 no person shall own or hold land in excess of the ceiling area and the excess land, if any, shall be taken over by the State. The other is that even after the notified date where persons acquire land as contemplated in S.87 or where land originally exempted ceases to be exempted or where classification or nature of the land has been altered subsequently and in consequence thereof the extent of the holding exceeds the ceiling area, that also shall be treated as excess and surrender obtained. It is significant to note that there is no provision in Chapter III indicating legislative intention to the effect that merely on account of change in the composition or strength of a family and without any acquisition or cessation of exemption or change in classification of land, ceiling area can be determined afresh with reference to the date on which the change in composition or strength of the family took place. Therefore, it is clear that the ceiling area prescribed in S.82 in respect of a family cannot increase or decrease subsequently merely on account of increase or decrease in the number of members of the family either by birth or by death or by minor members attaining majority. Ceiling area so far as a family is concerned is to be determined as on the notified dated namely 1.1.1970 WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 75

and it cannot undergo any fluctuation merely on account of change in the number of members of the family. To hold otherwise would detract the plain tenor of the provisions and amount to making an addition to the provisions of the Act''.

32. Whether the order of the TLB dropping the suo

motu proceedings initiated is justified or not is to be

answered on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the

case in the wake of the principles enunciated in the

judgments referred above.

33. Coming back to the facts of the case it is pertinent to

note that the chairman of the Taluk Land Board had

addressed the Sub Registrar, Balusssery by Ext.P12 that

prohibition relating to the transfer of land has not been lifted

and it is valid until the proceedings are approved by the

State Land Board. The 7th respondent also issued Ext.P13

letter to the 8th respondent stating that the restriction to

transfer property and register sale deed has not been lifted

till the approval by State Land Board. While so, Sri.P.K.C.

Ahammedkutty died and his legal heir, the 10 th respondent WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 76

with the 12th respondent executed another settlement

agreement regarding the sale of the estate for a total sale

consideration of Rs.55,54,97,251/-. Pursuant to the

agreement the company authorised one Sharma to execute

the conveyance deeds to the legal heirs or nominees of

Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty. Ext.P14 pertains to the said

agreement. Thereafter, the Samyuktha Trade Union Action

Committee, a union of workers approached the Chief

Minister for granting exemption to 540 workers from paying

the stamp duty for the lands to be registered in their names.

34. Section 81 of the KLR Act is in pith and substance

a special provision, with its main objective of giving

exemption to certain lands including the lands maintained as

plantations is to prevent fragmentation of the land and to

keep it as plantation itself to improve the economy of the

state for welfare of people as a whole while the Act creates

a regime, the State is under an obligation to safeguard, the

intended purpose of the provisions of the Act in its spirit. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 77

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued

that the character of the plantation had been lost as the

land was subjected to fragmentation and bifurcation of the

same. Though the company contended that the nature of

the land was not changed or converted, it could be

gathered from the records that the proposal to transfer 1.03

acres of land to each workers in discharge of their service or

retrenchment benefits will definitely divide the plantation

into separate slots and that would definitely change the

character/nature of the plantation, which could be termed as

'conversion' and that will be against the provisions of the

Act. In fact, most of the respondents contended that the

estate was fragmented and allotted to 456 workers and also

to the legal heirs of the workers of the estate. So

fragmentation of estate was effected and different persons

are holding possession of it either with title deed or without

title deeds.

35. Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned Counsel for the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 78

respondent No.18 points out that there is no provision

restricting fragmentation of lands exempted under the

provisions of the Land Reforms Act and there is nothing

illegal in the transfer of the estate effected by the company.

Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State

Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur and another

v. State of Kerala and others [2009(3)KLJ 110]

wherein it was held as:

"19.There is no restriction on alienation of lands exempted under Section 81 (1)(a) of the Land Reforms Act ,since such lands are exempted from the operation of Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act dealing with ceiling on holding. It is not the excess land that is alienated but the exempted land.........''

It was further held in para 21 that

''......Any exemption from ceiling provision under the Kerala Land Reforms Act has a purpose and the purpose in the present case is public interest and that public interest is the use of land for industrial purpose. Since under the Kerala Land Reforms Act there is no restriction on alienation of the exempted category of lands and since the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 79

transferee is subjected to the acid test of eligibility and entitlement for exemption in terms of use of the land, the transfer made by the HMT will also be subjected to the same test, namely use of the transferred land for industrial purpose. In other words, HMT is legally entitled to transfer 100 acres of land notified under Ext.R1(i) notification, but the transferee will have to use that land for industrial purpose and that purpose only. Therefore, the transfer is not vitiated in any way; but the transferee will have to use the land only for industrial purpose. That is a covenant on

the land''

36. According to him within a period of three years

commencing from 2013, 513 documents were executed in

favour of agriculturists and 500 documents in favour of the

workers of the estate. Now they are in possession and

enjoyment of the property and the unsuccessful attempt of

the petitioner is to thwart the registration of sale deeds in

favour of the persons in possession.

37. We may point out at this stage that the company

did not file objection in the main Writ Petition. But in W.P.

(C) No.22195/2017 counter affidavit was filed contending

that after the intervention of the Government to settle the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 80

dispute the company on receipt of additional sum of 24

Crores from the legal heir of Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty and

the purchasers under him together executed sale deeds in

favour of labourers and farmers but there is no change to

the character of those properties and it remain as rubber

plantations. Doubtless, the said contention is thoroughly

against the stand taken by the company before the TLB as

evident by Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No. 22195/2017 and Ext.P11 of

the main Writ Petition. The statement of the company that

there might be trespass or illegal cutting and removal of

trees by trespassers with the connivance of

Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty, may give rise to more litigation,

but will not justify the double stand adopted by the

company. Piercing into the provisions of KLR Act in fact it

could be seen that the words 'Fragmentation' as well

'Conversion' are not defined in the Act. Concise Law

Dictionary says that Fragmentation is 'the action or process

of breaking into fragments. 'Conversion' is the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 81

transformation of one species of property into another. In

Chacko's case (supra) it was held that Conversion would

normally be a conscious and voluntary act. The legislative

intention is clear that the provision to exempt plantation

from ceiling limits, is to promote agricultural growth as well

to help cultivation process in a most economic manner for

the welfare of the society as a whole. With that view, a

combined reading of Section 81 (4) and Explanation I and

II of Section 87 of the Act, put the things beyond any pale

of doubt . Fragmentation of the estate and transfer of it has

to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some

other category of land. Such being the scenario,

fragmentation amounts to serious violation of the provisions

of KLR Act. Hence, we are not impressed by the argument

of the learned counsel for the respondent No.18 that the

fragmented plots will be maintained as plantation by the

transferees, so as to extend/avail the benefit of HMT's case

(supra). Taking into account of all the relevant aspects, we WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 82

have no hesitation in holding that dropping of the suo motu

proceedings initiated under Section 87 of KLR Act by the TLB

in a cursory manner, is not at all reasonable or justifiable

when tested on the touchstone of the object and intention,

which the legislation seeks to achieve and beyond what is

required, in the interest of the public. Therefore, we are of

the considered opinion that the Taluk Land Board has not at

all considered or analyzed the situation properly in correct

perspective to achieve the intended purpose, aim and object

of provisions of KLR Act. In a situation like this,the argument

of the respondents fail.

38. We are also called upon to scrutinize the legality

and validity of ExtP18. Attack of the petitioner to Ext.P18,

one way or other, is alleging corruption. But it is defended or

resisted by raising the relevant aspect of public policy for

welfare/good of the public rather the hapless labourers who

had to suffer due to the lock out of the company. Prima

facie, it appears that their clamour invited the attention of WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 83

political leaders and intervention of the Government. The

representations submitted by the union of the workers

(whether registered or unregistered union)seeking

exemption of stamp duty for registration of title deeds

were forwarded to the Chief Minister with the report of

additional Secretary to Government, Taxes Department

that a loss of Rs.2,39,56,220/- will be caused to revenue if

exemption to stamp duty is granted. But, the Council of

Ministers on 5.3.2014 decided to grant exemption from the

stamp duty in registering the sale deeds in respect of the

workers, though the Law Department and Finance

Department objected the transfer. On 27.11.2015 Ext P18

G.O. was issued granting exemption to stamp duty under

the Kerala Stamp Act. Ext.P18 G.O dated 27.11.2015 reads

as follows:

"S.R.O.No.805/2015.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959), the Government of Kerala, being of the opinion that, it is WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 84

necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby remit the stamp duty chargeable under the said Act on the instruments of conveyance of an extent of 23025.498 Ares of land as specified in the Schedule 1 and II below, in Kozhikode District, to be executed in favour of 464 employees of Kinalur Rubber Estate mentioned in Schedule I and in favour of the legal heirs of 39 deceased employees of the said estate mentioned in Schedule II, handed over to the employees by M/s. Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries towards their service benefit."

A schedule attached along with the G.O includes the list of

464 employees and the legal heirs of 39 deceased

employees as schedule No.2.

Explanatory Note attached to P18 reads as follows :

"Explanatory Note

(This does not form part of the order, but is intended to

indicate its general report)

"The Chairman and the Convenor, Kinaloor Estate Joint Trade Union Act Committee have requested Government to remit the stamp duty chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959) for the instruments of conveyance WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 85

of an extent of 23025.498 Ares of land as specified in the Schedules shown in the order, in Kozhikode District, to be executed in favour of 464 employees of Kinalur Rubber Estate mentioned in Schedule I and in favour of legal heirs of 39 deceased employees of the said estate mentioned in Schedule II, handed over to the employees by M/s. Cochin-Malabar Estates and Industries towards service benefit. Government have decided to remit the duty chargeable for the said purpose, on public interest.

The order is intended to achieve the above object."

39. It is discernible by Ext.P16 that the Land Board

Secretary, Land Revenue Commissioner and Inspector

General of Registration had taken a decision that the

Government can transfer the property in the name of the

employees only after acquisition of the same and plantation

which are exempted cannot be fragmented as per the

provisions of the KLR Act, and that if the land is assigned as

per special permission of the Government, then the question

of granting exemption from remitting the stamp duty does

not arise. Therefore the matter has to be placed before WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 86

departments of Revenue and Law with the permission of

the Chief Minister for taking a decision for resuming the

estate. But still, Ext.P18 Notification was issued.

40. Smt.Daisy Philipose, the learned counsel for the

petitioner forcefully submitted that the issuance of the G.O

by the Government under the guise that it was for public

interest is definitely illegal and it was only to defeat the

provisions of the KLR Act and to help the land mafia. In

order to substantiate this argument, she relies on certain

decisions of the Apex Court. In Common cause, A

registered society v Union of India (1996 (6) SCC

530) it was held that any procedure laid down by the

Government must be transparent, just and non-arbitrary.

In Shivsagar Tiwari v Union of India ( 1996 (6)SCC

558) it has been observed in paragraph No.10 as follows:

"10. It would be apposite in this context to refer to the recent decision of this Court in Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, in which one of us(Kuldip Singh,J.)reiterated the need to act fairly and WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 87

justly in the matter of grant of larges, pointing out that any arbitrary distribution of national wealth would violate the law of the land. Mention was made of the judgment in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, stating that the same approved "misfeasance in public office" as a part of the law of the tort. It was pointed out that public servants become liable in damages for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrongdoing."

In Secretary Jaipur Development Authority v Daulat

Maljain others ( 1997 (1)SCC 35 ), the Apex Court dealt

with the question of certain Government action on public

policy and it was held as follows:

''13 All purposes or action for which moral responsibility can be attached are actions performed by individual persons composing the department. All Government actions, therefore,means actions performed by individual persons to further the objectives set down in the Constitution, the laws and the administrative policies to develop the democratic traditions, social and economic democracy set down in the Preamble, Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. The intention behind the Government actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest. Public good is synonymous with protection of the interest of the citizens WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 88

as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies.The limitations of policies are kept along with the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification.

14. The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflage for abuse of the power and trust entrusted with a public authority or public servant for the performance of the public duties. Misuse Implies doing of something improper. The essence of impropriety is the replacement of public motive or a private one. When satisfaction sought in the performance of duties is for mutual personal gain, the misuse is usually termed as corruption .........''

41. Based on the principle laid down in the decisions

referred above the learned counsel for the petitioner

strenuously argue that the policy of the Government causing

heavy loss to State Exchequer by exempting stamp duty is

no doubt against the public welfare/good and it could only

be to help the land mafia and the action of the Government

was abuse or misuse of power and the whole procedure was

not transparent. Therefore, Ext.P18 G.O. and the decision to WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 89

fragment the estate are liable to be set aside.

42. According to Sri.Renjith Thampan the learned

Additional Advocate General though exemption was granted

to the plantation of the company under Section 81 of the

KLR Act to achieve the object of the act by promoting

agriculture/cultivation the allegation, whether a real estate

group is behind the transaction is to be enquired into by the

appropriate authorities, if sufficient materials are placed

before the authorities. It is also submitted that some of the

workers have already occupied the land assigned to them

and constructed residential houses. Hence the revenue

department needs more time to enquire into the details

regarding the occupation of the land already assigned to the

workers. The revenue department objected registration of

sale deeds only to protect illegal bifurcation of the

plantation. The learned Additional Advocate General

canvassed our attention to the following decisions to argue

that the bifurcation and fragmentation of the estate was WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 90

against the intention and object of the Act and the said

action was illegal and not in public interest and as Ext.P18

is the outcome of the same, it is liable to be set aside.

43. In Smart Security and Secret Service Agency

v. State Bank of India [ 2016(3) KLT 1), a learned

Single Judge of this court observed in para 6 as follows:

"6............... The doctrine of public policy is a concept which is illusive, varying and uncertain. A conspectus of the various judicial pronouncements on the said concept indicates that the term 'public policy' is not capable of a precise definition and whatever tends to injustice of operation, restraint of liberty, commerce and natural or legal rights; whatever tends to the obstruction of justice or to the violation of a Statute and whatever is against good morals can be said to be against public policy.,,,,,''

44. It is held in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and others

v. State of Gujarath and Another [1995 Supp(1) SCC

596] by the Apex Court that property in legal sense means

an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected

by law. It extends to every species of valuable right and WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 91

interest, more particularly, ownership and exclusive right to

a thing, the right to dispose of thing in every legal way, to

possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from

interfering with it. The dominion or indefinite right of use or

disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular

things or subjects is called property. The exclusive right of

possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing is property in

legal parameters.

45. It is also observed that the term property has a

most extensive signification, and, according to its legal

definition, consists in free use, enjoyment, and disposition

by a person of all his acquisitions, without any control or

diminution, save only by the laws of the land.

46. But on the other hand Sri P.K. Suresh Kumar, the

senior learned Counsel relies on the view taken by the

Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others v Basant

Nahata (2005 (12) SCC 77) to support Ext.P18 G.O

issued by the Executive by exercising its powers. It was WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 92

observed as follows. "Whenever interpretation of the concept

"public policy" is required to be considered it is for the

judiciary to do so and in doing so even the power of the

judiciary is very limited".

47. The main challenge to Ext P18 is that it would

cause heavy loss to State Exchequer. But from the pleadings

in the petition itself it is discernible that after several rounds

of discussion and deliberation by the intervention of political

leaders as numerous hapless workers of the estate were

involved, the decision was taken by the Government to

ensure their rights to get retrenchment benefits. Ext.P2

settlement agreement dated 28.02.2003 was executed as

the retrenchment of the employees of the estate was

without giving any benefits/compensation as provided under

Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act points out,

Smt.T.P.Sindhu Mol, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.17. Thereafter, Ext.R17(a) dated 31/01/2015 was

ordered by the Government for giving retrenchment benefits WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 93

for 533 affected workers by registering properties in their

favour. Pursuant to the said order Ext.P18 was issued. The

words public policy connotes 'some matter which concerns

the public good and the public interest'. Taking into account

all the facts and circumstances in their entirety, the

consequences of grant or refusal of the relief sought for, the

nature and extent of injury or difficulties that is likely to

ensue by such grant or refusal in the light of the principles

laid down in the above referred decisions, at this stage we

are unable to conclude that the Government had exercised

its' discretionary power with mala fide intention in a most

arbitrary manner motivated by extraneous consideration.

The intention of the Government may be to protect and

promote or to ensure justice to the workers of the estate

eligible to claim retrenchment benefits. The priority of the

Government may be to restore the life and livelihood of the

affected workers. It is also to be noted that the complaints

filed by the petitioners in W.P(C) Nos. 22195/2017 and WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 94

8950/2015 are still pending.

48. Sri. Sudhi Vasudevan, the learned Senior Counsel

for the respondents 47 and 48 has submitted that they have

purchased property as per Ext.47 (a) and 47 (b) by paying

the requisite stamp duty, but the rubber plantation has not

been converted into any other land. Tax have been remitted

even for the period 2018-19 and the property is used as

rubber plantation.

49. Dr. George Abraham, the learned Counsel for

respondent Nos.20 to 38, and 42 to 44 argued that they are

agriculturists who purchased 5 Acres of land.

50. Adv.Benny.P.Thomas the learned counsel appearing

for the Company submitted that on the basis of the request

submitted by the trade union exemption from the stamp

duty was granted as the company could not pay

retrenchment benefits to its employees. Ext.P2 settlement

was made with the trade union and R11(a) and R11(b) were

made on culmination of the dispute with the employees. He WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 95

has also alerted us that in C.C No.7/2006 or in Co.Appeal

No.6/2010 there was no allegation against conversion of the

estate.

51. Respondent No.39 has produced the sale deed of

his property as R18(a) and contended that he is in

ownership and possession of the land. So also the

respondents 40 and 41 contended that they are in

possession of 4.04 acres of land which do form part of the

estate, but they are unable to sell that property due to the

pendency of this writ petition. Permission has been sought

for by some of the parties to convey their property during

the pendency of this petition and after obtaining permission

from this Court sale deeds were executed.

52. Sri.D.Kishore, the learned counsel for the

respondents 43 and 44 contended that they have purchased

property as per Exts.R43(a) and 43(b). Sri Jose Jones

Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondents 47 and 48

obtained title deed for certain extent of land as per WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 96

Exts.R47(a) and R47(b) from the legal heirs of

P.K.C.Ahammedkuty and they have registered the document

on payment of proper stamp duty.

53. After disposal of Co.Appeal No.6 of 2010,

O.S.No.153/2011 was filed by Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty

before the Sub Court, Koyilady for specific performance

against the company and thereafter the matter was

compromised and the compromise was entered into between

the parties. Ext.R17(a) is the copy of the plaint filed by

P.K.C.Ahammedkutty. Ext.R17(c) is the compromise petition

entered into and R17(d) is the judgment passed for specific

performance after accepting the compromise. In the

compromise petition as clause 5 it has been mentioned that

as sale consideration of Rs.55.64 Crores was received by

the company, the company has to execute and register

assignment deeds in respect of A schedule properties in the

name of the persons mentioned in B and C schedules. Thus,

the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 97

54. Sri.P.B.Krishnan has also pointed out that the main

petition is not maintainable as all the necessary parties are

not in the party array though their number is definite and

specific as 525 documents were executed in favour of the

agriculturists and 500 in favour of the workers. According to

the learned counsel without 1025 persons on the party

array the petition itself is not maintainable Ext.P18

Notification contains the names of 464 works and the legal

heirs of 39 deceased workers. Though there is a prayer to

set aside Ext.P18, it is important to note that they were not

made as parties in the main writ petition (W.P.

(C)No.28496/2016 ).

Rule 148 of High Court Rules reads as follows:

"148. Addition of parties- All persons directly affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the court on application made of the purpose be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the Original Petition shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 98

personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct."

In Siraj v. High Court of Kerala 2006(2)KLT 923 (SC) it

has been held that if the parties are definite resort cannot be

made to Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules and that

Rule can be applied only when very large number of persons

are involved and when it is not able to pinpoint those

persons with details. In Ravidas v. Public Service

Commission [2009(2)KLT 295] a Full Bench of this Court

also held that Rule 148 of the Kerala High Courts can be

applied only when a large and unspecified members of

candidates are involved.

55. It was also pointed out that the TLB was not

entitled to take suo motu proceedings without prior

intimation from the Land Board, Trivandrum and hence as

far as the suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 87

(later dropped) is bad on that ground also (State of Kerala

v. Idiculla [1980 KLT 120] ).

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 99

56. The whole purpose of KLR Act as the title itself

indicates was to introduce land reforms in the State

(known as Gods Own Country). But, we are certain in our

minds that large number of people are still sleeping on the

streets of this 'Gods Own Country' just for the reason that

they have no place of abode. To give at least a bit of land to

such landless people by taking it from landlords who possess

in excess was the major aim of the KLR Act. To sum up the

matter in issue, we find that, here the provisions of the Land

Reforms Act have been violated by the company by entering

into an agreement for sale of the property with

Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty and others and it is also evident

that though the company had taken a stand that it never

intended to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act and the

agreement with Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty was cancelled, it is

clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record

that the major portion of the estate had been transferred

and numerous sale deeds were registered in violation of the WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 100

order of the District Collector, Kozhikode. Ext.P11 indicates

that the Taluk Land Board initiated suo motu proceedings

under Sec.87 of the KLR Act against the company and a

draft statement was served on the company directing the

company to surrender 335.01 Acres of land. It is also clear

from Ext.P11 itself that the Company has contended before

the Taluk Land Board that the Company has not sold any

land to Sri.P.K.C.Ahammedkutty and agreement had been

cancelled as he did not comply with the terms of MOU and

that the company did not execute any sale deed in favour of

any person. As mentioned earlier the definite contention

was that the estate remains as plantation and mere trespass

into the estate by anyone does not indicate that lands have

been converted into a class of land not exempted. Simply

accepting the said contentions the TLB concluded that the

company was not liable to surrender an extent of 335.01

Acres as directed. Thus the proceedings under Section 87 of

the KLR Act was dropped.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 101

57. Having evaluated the situation relying upon the

provisions of the KLR Act quoted above, we are satisfied that

the TLB had failed to go deep into the serious issue involved

but dealt with the matter in a most casual manner and that,

in our view would defeat the whole purpose of KLR Act.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the ends of

justice would be met only if we direct the Taluk Land Board

to reopen the proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the

KLR Act, to reconsider the issue and to dispose of the same

afresh with all parties concerned on the party array, though

it may be time consuming.

58. In State of Kerala v. Krishnan Master [2008

(1 ) KLT 641] it is held that Power is vested with the Board

to reopen the case if a case was already decided, or to

initiate proceedings under Section 87 for taking the land as

excess land in excess of the ceiling limit. Reliance is also

placed on the decisions in Chacko Varghese's case

(supra) and Raghavan's case (supra).

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 102

59. Recently, while answering a reference made to a

Full Bench of this Court in Mathew.K.Jacob v. District

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (2018

(4) KLT 913) doubting the decision in State of Kerala v.

Mohammedali Haji (1996 (1) KLT 584 (D.B) it was

observed in paragraph 8 as follows:

"8. The internal aid shall be applied first before calling for external aid in the interpretation of a statute and this wholesome principle is relevant to construe the term 'commercial site' appearing in the Act. S.81(3) of the Act which enables the Government to grant exemption by notification in Gazette is as follows:

"81(3) The Government may, if they are satisfied that is necessary to do so in the public interest-

(a) on account of any special use to which any land is put; or

(b) on account of any land being bona fide required for the purpose of conversion into plantation or for the extension or preservation of an existing plantation or for any commercial, industrial, educational or charitable purpose, by notification in the Gazette, exempt such land from the provisions of this Chapter, subject to such restrictions and conditions as they may deem fit to impose:

Provided that the land referred to in clause (b) shall be used for the purpose for which it is extended within such WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 103

time as the Government may specify in that behalf; and, where the land is not so used within the time specified, the exemption shall cease to be in force." (emphasis supplied)

There is no necessity to empower the Government to grant exemption for any commercial or industrial purpose in public interest when commercial sites are already exempted under S.81(1)(q) of the Act. The necessary corollary therefore is that the term 'commercial site' as defined in S.2(5) of the Act read with S.81(1)(q) of the Act has to be given a narrower meaning only. What is relevant under S.81(3) of the Act is that there should be public interest as opposed to private interest and the land bona fide required for the purpose intended."

It was further observed in paragraph No. 13 as :

"...............We however add that any class of land earlier exempted in the ceiling case can be converted into any class of land not liable to be exempted under Explanation II to S.87 of the Act. The consequence is that the benefit of the exemption would be lost and the extent added to the account of the assessee or the declarant in determination of his ceiling area. That is a matter to be dealt with by the Taluk Land Board with the assessee or the declarant and other interested parties on the party array and we desist from elaborating further. Accordingly we overrule the dictum in Mohammedali Haji's case WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 104

(supra) and approve the dictum in Krishnankutty's case (supra) on the scheme of the Act consistent with its object. The reference is answered as above."

60. Therefore, we quash Ext.P11 dated 20.6.2013 and

mould the relief as below, as we find that it is just, fair and

reasonable to direct the Taluk Land Board to deal with the

issue with the company/declarant and all the interested and

aggrieved parties on the party array in accordance with the

provisions of the KLR Act to give a quietus. It is revealed

from the records that in fact at least some of the parties are

pursuing litigation before different Courts. In view of the

above, we make it clear that without all the parties on the

party array and without hearing the grievance of all the

aggrieved parties, a correct and just adjudication is not

possible in a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. We hope that the parties will also co-

operate for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings by

the Taluk Land Board, Koyilady.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 105

61. In the result, these Writ Petitions are disposed of as below:

1) W.P.C 28496 of 2016 :

Ext.P11 order dated 20.6.2013 of the Taluk land Board is

hereby quashed.

Suo motu proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board,

Koyilandy against the Company under Section 87 of KLR Act

is reopened. The said proceedings have to be pursued

afresh in accordance with the provisions of the KLR Act after

issuing notice to the 10th respondent Company, all the

persons included in Ext.P18 Government Order and all other

interested parties concerned and shall be disposed of at the

earliest.

Prayer to set aside Ext.P18 being a policy decision of

the Government, is disallowed.

2) W.P.(C) No.22195 of 2017:

The reliefs sought for is to quash Ext.P23 which is Ext.P18

in W.P(C) No.28496/ 2016 as well to stop fragmentation and WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 106

sale of the estate. The reliefs sought for is covered by the

reliefs granted in W.P(C)No.28496/2016. Therefore, this Writ

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

3) W.P(C)No. 8950 of 2015 :

The relief sought for is to direct the 2 nd respondent to

conduct and complete investigation on the complaint filed

by the petitioner therein. As the Taluk Land Board has been

directed to consider the issues involved afresh in the wake of

the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.28496 of 2016 and

the prayer to set aside Exts.P18/P23 is disallowed, the

compliant pending has to be disposed of by the appropriate

authority in accordance with law .

4) W.P(C)No.6815/2015: Similar reliefs have been

sought for to direct the 4 th respondent/the Central Bureau

of Investigation to conduct and complete the investigation

on Ext P16. As the Taluk Land Board has to consider the

issue involved afresh pursuant to the direction of this Court

in W.P.(C) No.28496 of 2016 and that the prayer to set aside WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 107

Ext.P18/P23 is disallowed, the compliant pending has to be

disposed of in accordance with law.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. In the

facts and circumstances, however parties are directed to

bear their own costs.

Sd/-

27.02.2019 K. SURENDRAMOHAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

SHIRCY V., JUDGE ks/smm WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 108

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28496/2016 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 01/02/2002 ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 28/2/2003 BETWEEN THE 10TH RESPONDENT, P.K.C AHAMMEDKUTTY AND THE LABOUR UNIONS

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/2/2003 ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CALICUT

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/11/2003 IN C.A NO.75/2003 BEFORE THE COMPANY LAW BOARD

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/5/2004 IN I.A NO.1464/2003 IN O.A NO.167/2000, ON THE FILES OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 24/11/2005 IN I.A NO.2546/2005 IN OS NO.131/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/1/2007, IN COMPANY CASE NO.7/06 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.49/2004

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE RECEIVER APPOINTED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN C.P NO.49/2004 WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 109

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/1/2012, ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT, ALONG WITH THE TRANSLATION

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONVENED BY THE THEN CHEIF MINISTER ON 20/3/2012, ALONG WITH THE TRANSLATION

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN TLB(Q)1/10 DATED 26/6/2013

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TLB(Q)1/10 DATED 8/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L3/31763/09 DATED 15/1/2014 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOZHIKODE.

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT COMPANY DATED 7/10/2013

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE THEN CHIEF MINISTER, WITH ITS TRANSLATION

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY THE CHIEF MINISTER ON 24/10/2014 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REFERENCE NOTES IN RESPECT OF FILE NO.29049/E2/13/TD

EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.208/2015/TD DATED 27/1/2015, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 110

EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE STATE LAND BOARD

EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/3/2012, ISSUED BY THE STATE LAND BOARD TO ALL DISTRICT COLLECTORS, WITH ITS TRANSLATION

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.200/1988 DATED 25.2.1988

ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.199/1988 DATED 25.2.1988

ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE REPORT NO.85/17 DATED 11/4/2017 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UNNIKULAM TO THE TAHSILDAR, THAMARASSERY

ANNEXURE III(a) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE III

ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED

28.1.2015.

EXHIBIT R11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/11/2003 IN CO.APPEAL.NO.6/2010 PASSED BY THIS COURT .

EXHIBIT R11(b) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2009 IN CO.CASE NO.7/2006 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

EXHIBIT R11(c) COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 27.7.2003 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND P.K.C.AHAMMEDKUTTY.

EXHIBIT R16(a). COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 28.2.2003

EXHIBIT R16(b) COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 4.12.2007 IN REPORT NO.11/2007 IN CO.PETITION NO.49/2004 WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 111

EXHIBIT R17 COY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 31.1.2015

EXHIBIT R17(a) COPY OF O.S.NO.153/2011 FILED BY SRI.P.K.C.AHAMEDKUTTY BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KOYILANDY

EXHIBIT R17(b) COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES

EXHIBIT R17(c) COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE C.P.C.

EXHIBIT R17(d) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.153/2011

EXHIBIT R17(e) COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO.153/2011 DATED 26.3.2014

EXHIBIT R18 DATED 23.1.2014, TRUE COPY OF THE JENM SALE DEED NO.93/2014 SRO, KOZHIKODE

ANNEXURE R18(a) COPY OF THE JENM SALE DEED DATED 12.11.2013 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.4931/2013 OF S.R.O. THAMARASSERY

ANNEXURE R18(b) COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 23.10.2013 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.4491 OF 2013 OF S.R.O., THAMARASSERY

EXHIBIT R40(a) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.199/1988 DATED 15.2.1988

EXHIBIT R40(b) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.199/1988 DTD.

25.2.1988

EXHIBIT R40(c) COPY OF REPORT NO.85/17 DATED 11.4.2017 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UNNIKULAM TO THE TAHSILDAR, THAMARASSERY

EXHIBIT R40(d) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF R40(c) .

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 112

EXHIBIT R43(A). TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3155/2002 DATED 25.11.2002.

EXHIBIT R43(B). TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2986/2002 DATED 06.11.2002.

EXHIBIT R43(C). TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED NO.1814/2011 DATED 20.04.2011.

EXHIBIT R43(D). TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED NO.1815/2011 DATED 20.04.2011.

EXHIBIT R43(E). TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2017 IN I.A.18824/2017 IN W.P.(C) 28496/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT R47(a) COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 12/11/2013 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.94/2014 OF THE S.R.O, THAMARASSERY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ADDL. 47TH RESPONDENTAND HIS WIFE

EXHIBIT R47(b) COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 12/11/2013 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.98/2014 OF S.R.O,THAMARASSERY EXEUCTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ADDL.48TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R47(c) COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/7/2018 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXT.R47(a) ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UNNIKULAM IN FAVOUR OF THE 47TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R47(d) COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.7.2018 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE PROPERTY COVRED UNDER EXT.R47(b) ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UNNIKULAM IN FAVOUR OF THE 48TH RESPONDENT WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 113

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6815/2016 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.809 OF 1954, UNNIKULAM AMSOM AND VILLAGE IN KOYILANDY TALUK AND PRESENT THAMARASSERY TALUK, SHOWING THAT AN EXTENT OF 874-33 ACRES HAD BEEN GIVEN ON LEASE TO THE "COMPANY" BY THE PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2090/1972, BY WHICH "COMPANY"

OBTAINED AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE JENM RIGHT FROM THE MEMBERS OF THARAVAD.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UNNIKULAM TO K.CHANDRASEKARAN.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.11.2013 FILED BY K.CHANDRASEKARAN BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY.

EXHIBIT P5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY TO K.CHANDRASEKARAN.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.4968/2013 DATED 11.11.2013 REGISTERED ON 30.11.2013 EXECUTED BY P.K.ANWAR IN FAVOUR OF P.D.ABRAHAM WITH THE ACTIVE HELP AND CONNAIVANCE OF K.P.USSAIN AND OTHERS.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 114

EXHIBIT P7 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.5011/2013 DATED 20.11.2013 REGISTERED ON 3.12.2013 EXECUTED BY P.K.ANWAR IN FAVOUR OF P.D.ABRAHAM WITH THE ACTIVE HELP AND CONNAIVANCE OF K.P.USSAIN AND OTHERS.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THAT APPLICATION DATED 11.2.2015 FILED BY THE BROTHER OF THE A.RAVINDRAN BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR) CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, UNDER THE R.I. ACT.

EXHIBIT P9 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.2014 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS.

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2015 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE EXTRACT NO.325/R.A.K./2015 DATED 19.2.2015 OF COLUMN NO.1, SY.NO.1, COLUMN NO.2, SUB DIVISION NO.1 FROM THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER UNNIKULAM DESOM NO.339, KURUMBRANAD TALUK, MALABAR (DT.) ISSUED TO THE A.RAVINDRAN BY THE SUPERINTENDENT REGIONAL ARCHIVES, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-20.

EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF SY.NO.1 SUB DIVISION NOS.2 TO 12 OF PAGE NO.2 & 3 OF THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER, UNNIKULAM DESOM NO.339, KURUMBRANAD TALUK, MALABAR (DT.) NOTED DOWN BY THE A.RAVINDRAN.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 115

EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE EXTRACT NO.1052/R.A.K./2015/R.M.I DATED 6.6.2015 COLUMN NO.1, SY.NO.58, COLUMN NO.2, SUB DIVISION NO.1 FROM THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER UNNIKULAM DESOM NO.339, KURUMRANAD TALUK, MALABAR (DT.) ISSUED TO A.RAVINDRAN BY THE REGIONAL ARCHIVES, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-20.

EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DUPLICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR RECEIPT OF MONEY WITH RECEIPT BK NO.0044831 BOOK NO.00449 DATED 12.5.2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ARCHIVES, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-20.

EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF SY.NO.58, SUBDIVISION 2 TO 13 OF THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER, UNNIKULAM DESOM NO.339, KURUMBRANAD TALUK, MALABAR (DT.) NOTED DOWN BY A.RAVINDRAN.

EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.11.2015 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS.

EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 5.2.2016 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO.8950 OF 2015 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P18 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE DY.SP., THAMARASSERY TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 23.10.2013 EXECUTED BY THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. IN FAVOUR OF THE T6TH RESPONDENT.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 116

EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL BY THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER TO THE SUB REGISTRAR THAMARASSERY FOR ISSUING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY NO. 220/2013/4 AND ITS REPLY DATED 3.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, THAMARASSERY.

EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9.9.2010 FILED BY THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. TO THE DRAFT STATEMENT IN CEILING CASE NO. TLB (Q)1/10 BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDY.

EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE NO.

2642 DATED 27.11.2015 NOTIFYING THE ORDER NO. G.O.(P) NO. 208/2015/TDD ISSUED BY THE TAXES(E) DEPT. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF THE COVREING LETTER DATED 28.6. 2017 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRATION DY.I.G.(LICENSING) TO K.M. BALAKRISHNAN ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAPERS RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION DATED 29.5.2017.

EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.

I.N.S.1/3469/17 DATED 17.8.2017 SENT BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KOZHIKODE TO K.M. BALAKRISHNAN.

EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF THAT LETTER NO. I.N.S. 1- 3469/17 DATED 17.8.2017 SENT BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) KOZHIKODE TO THE REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, TRIVANDRUM.

EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF THAT REPLY WITH FILE NO.

IGR/5461/2017-GRC 1 DATED 18.6.2018 ISSUED WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 117

BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION TRIVANDRUM TO K.M. BALAKRISHNAN.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

EXT.R6(a) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.11.2013 IN CO.

APPEAL NO.6/2010 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 118

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22195/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 809

OF 1954, UNNIKULAM AMSOM AND VILLAGE IN KOYILANDY TALUK AND PRESENT THAMARASSERY TALUK, SHOWING THAT AN EXTENT OF 874-33 ACRES, HAD BEEN GIVEN ON LEASE TO THE "COMPANY" BY THE PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THAT DOCUMENT NO 2090/1972, BY WHICH COMPANY OBTAINED THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE JENM RIGHT FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE THARAVAD.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 4466 OF 2013 DATED 4-11-2013 EXECUTED BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF P.K.C AHAMMED KUTTY, IN FAVOUR OF C. AYYAPPAN FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 28/2/2003 BETWEEN THE 12TH RESPONDENT P.K.C. AHAMMEDKUTTY AND THE LABOUR UNIONS.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/2/2003 ISSUED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT TO THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CALICUT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/11/2003 IN CA NO. 75/2003 BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 119

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/5/2014 IN IA NO. 1464/2003 IN O.A. NO. 167 OF 2000, BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2005 IN IA NO. 2546/2005 IN OS NO. 131 OF 2005, BY THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/1/2007 IN COMPANY CASE NO. 7/06 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 49/2004.

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-11-2009 IN COMPANY CASE NO.7 OF 2006 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 49 OF 2004 BY THE COMPANY BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P11 THE MOU DATED 27-7-2003 BETWEEN THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MALABAR HOUSE, 56 BRISTOW ROAD, VILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI- 682 003 AND P.K.C AHAMMEDKUTTY.

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT TO THE RECEIVER IN CP NO.

49/2004.

EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9- 9-2010 FILED BY THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED (12TH RESPONDENT) TO THE DRAFT STATEMENT IN CEILING CASE NO. TLB Q 1/10 BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDY.

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/1/2012 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT. WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 120

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONVENED BY THE THEN CHIEF MINISTER ON 20/03/2012.

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT IN TLB Q 1/10 DATED 26/6/2013.

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. TLB Q 1/10 DATED 8/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO L3/31763/09 DATED 15/1/2014 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOZHIKODE.

EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 12TH RESPONDENT COMPANY DATED 7/10/2013.

EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/2013 SUBMITTED BY C. KRISHNAN NAIR BEFORE THE THEN CHIEF MINISTER.

EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY THE CHIEF MINISTER ON 24/10/2014.

EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REFERENCE NOTES IN RESPECT OF FILE NO. 29049/E2/13/TD.

EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF GOP NO. 208/2015 TD DATED 27/11/2015, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE STATE LAND BOARD.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 121

EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/3/2012, ISSUED BY THE STATE LAND BOARD TO ALL DISTRICT COLLECTORS.

EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. I.N.S. 1- 3469/17 DATED 17.8.2017 SENT BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, KOZHIKODE TO K.M. BALAKRISHNAN.

EXT.P27: TRUE COPY OF THAT LETTER NO. INS 1/3469/17 DATED 17.8.2017 SENT BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR)GENERAL)KOZHIKODE TO THE REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL),. TRIVANDRUM.

EXT.P28: TRUE COPY OF THAT GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 23.,10.2013 EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P29: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. 4968/2013 DATED 11.11.2013 EXECUTED BY P.K.ANWAR IN FAVOUR OF P.D. ABRAHAM.

EXT.P30: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. 5011/2013 DATED 20.11.2013 EXECUTED BY P.K. ANWAR IN FAVOUR OF P.D. ABRAHAM

EXT.P31:

TRUE COPY OF THAT REPLY WITH FILE NO.

IGR 5461/2017-GRC1 DATED 18.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE NSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TRINDRUM TO K.M.ALAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.R12(a) COPY OF THE ORIGINAL LEASE DEED EXECUTED IN WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 122

THE YEAR 1919 WITH MALAYALAM VERSION.

EXT.R12(B) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.11.2013 IN CO.APPEAL NO.6/2010 BY THIS COURT.

EXT.R22(a) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.11.2013 IN CO.APPEAL NO.6/2010 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

EXT.R22(b) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2009 IN CO.CASE NO.7/2006 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

EXT.R22(c) COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 27.7.2003 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND P.K.C.AHAMMEDKUTTY WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 123

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8950/2015

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 809 OF 1954, UNNIKULAM AMSOM AND VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK, SHOWING THAT AN EXTENT OF 874-33 ACRES, HAD BEEN GIVEN ON LEASE TO THE COMPANY BY THE PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO, 2090/1972, BY WHICH COMPANY OBTAINED AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE JENM RIGHT FROM THE MEMBERS OF THARAVAD

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UNNIKULAM TO K.CHANDRASEKARAN.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 5/11/2013 FILED BY K.CHANDRASEKARAN BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE ADDL, TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY TO K.CHANDRASEKARAN.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COP OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. 4968/2013 DATED 11/11/2013 REGISTERED ON 30/11/2013 EXECUTED BY P.K.ANWAR IN FAVOUR OF P.D.ABRAHAM WITH THE ACTIVE HELP AND CONNIVANCE OF K.P.USSAIN AND OTHERS.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 124

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. 5011/2013 DATED 20/11/2013 REGISTERED ON 3/12/2013 EXECUTED BY P.K.ANWAR IN FAVOUR OF P.D.ABRAHAM WITH THE ACTIVE HELP AND CONNIVANCE OF K.P.USSAIN AND OTHERS.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 11/2/2015 FILED BY THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR) CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 17/12/2014 WITHOUT THE ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 23/10/2013 EXECUTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUB REGISTRAR THAMARASSERY FOR ISSUING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE P.A.NO.

220/2013/4 AND ITS REPLY DATED 3/8/2016 BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, THAMARASSERY.

EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9/9/2010 FILED BY THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED TO THE DRAFT STATEMENT IN CEILING CASE NO. TLB(Q) 1/10 BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDY.

EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THAT KERALA GAZETTE NO. 2642 DATED 27/11/2015 NOTIFYING THE ORDER NO. G.O.(P) NO.208/2015/TD ISSUED BY THE TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 125

EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28/6/2017 ISSUED BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRATION DY.I.G. (LICENSING) TO K.M.BALAKRISHNAN ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAPERS AS PER THE APPLICATION DATED 29/5/2017

EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. INS 1- 3469/17 DATED 17/8/2017 SENT BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE TO K.M.BALAKRISHNAN.

EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THAT LETTER NO. INS 1- 3469/17 DATED 17/8/2017 SENT BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE TO THE REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, TRIVANDRUM.

EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THAT REPLY WITH FILE NO. IGR5461/2017-GRC1 DATED 18/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM TO K.M.BALAKRISHNAN.

WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 126 WPC Nos.28496/2016,8950/15 6815/16& 22195/2017 127