The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Kerala government challenging a State High Court decision that the Special Officer and Collector appointed by it lacks jurisdiction to order the acquisition of over 36,000 acres of land in the possession of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.
The Kerala High Court had directed that the question of title of the property should be decided by the civil court concerned and not the Special Officer and Collector appointed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act of 1957. The High Court had set aside the final orders passed by the Special Officer.
A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and Indu Malhotra upheld the High Court decision.
Now, the Kerala government will have to fight for title over the lands before the civil court, State counsel G. Prakash said.
The State, represented by senior advocate Jaideep Gupta and Mr. Prakash, had argued that Harrisons Malayalam Ltd (HML) calls itself a “successor of a foreign company incorporated in England” years ago during the time of Independence.
The State alleged that it does not have a “clear title” over the plots of land which “belongs to the government”. The petition quoted the report filed by a high-level committee in September 2007 and a follow-up study by the Justice L. Manoharan Committee in June 2008. Justice Manoharan panel had recommended that the plots could be acquired if they belonged to the government.
The State claimed that the documents of the company was “full of in-discrepancies” and “vast lands are not covered in their title deeds”.
The petition contended that the 1957 Act gave the power of summary eviction against unauthorised occupation of government lands. It said the High Court’s conclusion based on the sole ground of jurisdiction of the Special Officer was “erroneous”.
“This would mean that merely by raising a dispute as to the jurisdiction question, a person would be able to prevent proceedings commencing at all under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act,” the State had contended.
It had said the Act lays down a “complete code”. The civil court has the “final word” to protect the genuine land owner from incorrect adjudication. The High Court should not have investigated the issue until all the avenues prescribed under the 1957 Act was exhausted, the State had pleaded.