Kerala High Court
P.G.Godavarma Raja vs The Land Board on 7 July, 2025
2025:KER:49558
O.P.No.37855 of 2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
OP NO. 37855 OF 2002
PETITIONERS:
1 P.G.GODAVARMA RAJA
SON OF KRISHNAN NAMBUDIRI,
AGED 73, RETIRED FACT OFFICER, RESIDING AT
NANDANAM, KANNANKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 ANIL S.RAJ,
SON OF SUNDAR RAJAN,
AGED 32 YEARS, ADVOCATE, PANTHIYIL,
WARRIYAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI-682 016,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 ARUN S.RAJ
SON OF SUNDAR RAJAN
AGED 28 YEARS, ENGINEER,
RESIDING AT KALABHAVAN ST.MARTIN CHURCH ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-682 028, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY SUNDAR RAJAN,
AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALABHAVAN ST.MARTIN
CHURCH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 028,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SHRI.G.RENJITH
SMT.ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
SRI.T.H.ARAVIND
2025:KER:49558
O.P.No.37855 of 2002
2
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE LAND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI, PAINAVU P.O.
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
DEVICOLAM TALUK,
DEVICOLAM.
6 M/S.TATA TEA LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE, CALCUTTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, MUNNAR.
*ADDL.R7 DILIP KUMAR VARMA
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPAD,
KANJIRAMATTOM PALACE, POONJAR - 686581.
ADDL.R8 DR. BEENAKUMARI
AGED 68 YEARS,
D/O. RAVI VARMA, C2, DASAPUSHPAM APARTMENT,
NEYTHELI MAVELIPURAM ROAD, KAKKANAD - 682030.
ADDL.R9 ROHINI VARMA
AGED 61 YEARS
D/O. LALITHA VARMA, KRA 131, ISHA,
THRIPUNITHURA - 682301.
ADDL.R10 S. GOPAKUMAR VARMA
AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O. SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOODIRI, MEGHNA, RIVER WALK
VILLA, CHALIKKAVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028.
ADDL.R11 R. HARI GODAVARMA
AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O. RAVI VARMA,B-2, DASAPUSHPAM APARTMENTS,
NEYTHELI MAVELIPURAM ROAD, KAKKANAD - 682030.
2025:KER:49558
O.P.No.37855 of 2002
3
ADDL.R12 ANILKUMAR VARMA.R.
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. C.K. RAVI VARMA,
39 AB-O, STAR APARTMENT ANNEXE,
THRIPUNITHURA - 682301.
ADDL.R13 ARUNKUMAR SOMASEKHARA VARMA
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. SOMASEKHARA VARMA, 11R2,
NIKUNJAM MERIDIAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.
ADDL.R14 NANDAKUMAR.R.
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MUKUNDA RAJA,
KAMALALAYAM PALACE,POONJAR - 686581.
ADDL.R15 VISMITHA VARMA
AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. DR. K. RAVI VARMA,
A3, DASAPUSHPAM APARTMENTS, MAVELIPURAM,
KAKKANAD - 682030.
*(Additional R7 to R15 are impleaded as per order
dated 17.10.2024 in I.A.No.1/2024 in
O.P.No.37855/2002.)
BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
SRI.VIPIN ANTO H.M.
SRI.JOYWIN MATHEW
SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA
SRI.R.SUDHIR
SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR)
ADV M L SAJEEVAN. SPL.GP
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49558
O.P.No.37855 of 2002
4
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------
O.P.No.37855 of 2002
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
This original petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P17 and P19 and for consequential reliefs.
2. Ext.P17 is an order dated 29.3.1974 of the Land Board of Kerala in an application filed by the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., Munnar (KDHPC Ltd). The application was filed under Section 4 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971. It was allowed by the Land Board. A list of the areas to be continued under vesting in Government under Section 3(1) of the Act and a list of the areas to be retained with the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. were appended to the order as Annexures 5 and 6. A map of the area was also appended to the order. Ext.P18 petition 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 5 dated 5.4.2002 was filed before the Land Board by the petitioners herein seeking to recall Ext.P17 order. The Land Board, by Ext.P19 proceedings dated 20.9.2002, rejected Ext.P18 as not maintainable. Thereafter the original petition was filed.
3. Petitioners are members of Poonjar Royal family also known as Poonjar Kovilakom. By Ext.P2, the then Chief of Poonjar Kovilakom leased out a large tract of land mentioned therein to Mr. John Daniel Munroe on 11.7.1877. Ext.P3 is known as the Second Poonjar Concession which was executed between the Poonjar Raja and Mr.John Daniel Munroe on 26.7.1879. Ext.P4 is a ratification issued by the Dewan of Travancore by which the concession agreement dated 11.7.1877 was ratified by the Government of Travancore. Later, successor of John Daniel Munroe namely North Travancore Land Planting and Agricultural Society, a company incorporated in India and the Government of Travancore executed Ext.P5 deed on 2.8.1886 and still later the successor to the said company, 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 6 Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd (KDHPC Ltd). executed another agreement with the Government of Travancore on 19.12.1944.
4. The Kerala Government enacted the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act in 1971. Preamble of the Act is extracted hereunder:-
"Preamble. - WHEREAS the lands comprising the entire revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills in the Devicolam taluk of the Kottayam district had been given on lease by the then Poonjar Chief to late Mr John Daniel Munroe of London and Peermade on the 11th day of July, 1877, for coffee cultivation;
AND WHEREAS the right, title and interest of the lessor had been assumed by the former Government of Travancore;
AND WHEREAS by such assumption the lands have become the property of the former Government of Travancore;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Kerala have 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 7 become the successor to the former Government of Travancore;
AND WHEREAS large extent of agricultural lands in that village has not been converted into plantations or utilised for purposes of plantation and such lands are not required for the purposes of the existing plantation;
AND WHEREAS the Government consider that such agricultural lands should be resumed for the distribution thereof for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto;"
5. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ramakumar appearing for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings before the Land Board at the instance of the KDHPC Ltd was misguided and not maintainable. He referred to Section 7 of the Act and submitted that the dispute was actually with regard to possession of land or portion of the land and hence the proper procedure as under Section 7 was to be followed. He contended that under Section 6 of the Act, demarcation of boundaries was 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 8 mandatory and the said statutory requirement was not followed. Referring to Exts.P1 to P4, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Poonjar Kovilakom which leased out the subject properties and still receive rent from the 6 th respondent was a necessary party to the proceedings before the Land Board. He contended that the order passed by the Land Board without junction of the Poonjar Kovilakom can be considered only as a nullity. The learned Senior Counsel extensively referred to Exts.P1 to P5 to buttress the contention that the Poonjar Kovilakom was the absolute proprietor of the subject lands and the 6th respondent company is only a lessee. With specific reference to Ext.P13 showing payment of annual rent on 4.5.1985 to the Valiya Raja of Poonjar Palace, much after passing of Ext.P17, the learned Senior Counsel argued that subsistence of the rights of the Poonjar Kovilakom was conceded even by the 6th respondent. That being so, the Poonjar Kovilakom was a necessary party and proceedings before the Land Board without hearing the Kovilakom was opposed to the 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 9 basic principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, submitted the learned Senior Counsel. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that without conducting a proper survey, the Land Board ought not to have passed an order in the nature of Ext.P17. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that if the Kovilakom had got an opportunity, the family could have raised issues such as vesting of only a part of their lands and subsistence of their rights as jenmi. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that whether the ultimate outcome would have been same or different even with the junction of the Poonjar Kovilakom was immaterial and the question is as to whether the proceedings were vitiated on account of non- joinder of the family. The learned Senior Counsel referring to the grounds raised in Ext.P18 application contended that none of them were even considered by the Land Board while issuing Ext.P19. The Land Board ought to have considered the grounds with respect to the rights claimed by the Poonjar Kovilakom and without doing so, the Board should not have arrived at a 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 10 conclusion that the petition was not maintainable.
6. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the following judgments to advance the contention that omission to join the Poonjar Kovilakom and to hear them is a sufficient reason to hold Ext.P17 as void:
1) State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal [2023 KHC OnLine 6324]
2) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey [2023 KHC OnLine 6726]
3) Gopal Govind Lakade v. State of Maharashtra [2025 (3) KHC 543]
7. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co.Ltd. v. State of Kerala and another [(1972) 2 SCC 218] to contend that the 'jenmam right' of the Poonjar Kovilakom was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that only the sovereign rights were with the 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 11 Government of Travancore as far as the subject properties are concerned and the proprietory right vested only with the Poonjar Royal family.
8. Sri.Joseph Kodianthra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submitted that Ext.P17 was passed as early as on 29.3.1974 and petitioners filed Ext.P18 petition before the Land Board only on 5.4.2002. The learned Senior Counsel contended that there was delay of more than 28 years on the part of the petitioners. He submitted that the claims raised by the petitioners were therefore not liable to be even considered by the Land Board. He submitted that the experimental nature of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners is evident from the long delay. The learned Senior Counsel made reference to the judgment of this Court dated 24.11.2000 in O.P.No.551/1995 and connected cases. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the same issue was involved in the cases disposed of by this Court and pointed out paragraph 33 of the judgment wherein this Court specifically 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 12 held that no ground was made out for interfering with the order passed by the Land Board as early as on 29.3.1974, at a distant point of time. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said judgment was passed in 2000, 25 years ago, holding that, on account of passage of time after the Land Board passed the order, interference at a belated stage would not be justified. The learned Senior Counsel hence contended that the said reasoning adopted by this Court to refuse intervention 25 years ago would apply with more vigor and rigor in the present proceedings. He further submitted that the said judgment of this Court had become final long ago as the Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld the same. Regarding the rights of the 6 th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel contended that it is in the nature of a permanent perpetual lease. After reading out the preamble of the Act 5 of 1971, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the right, title and interest of the lessor, Poonjar Chief was undoubtedly assumed by the former Government of Travancore and thus the lands became the property of the former 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 13 Government of Travancore as stated in the preamble. The Poonjar Kovilakom was entitled only to receive a payment of Rs.3,000/- saved under Ext.P4 ratification by the Government of Travancore and no other rights can be claimed by it. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co.Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218] concluded that the effect of Royal Proclamation of 1899 must be that the Sircar became the jenmi. Hence, he contended that the Poonjar Kovilakom cannot claim jenmam rights any more.
9. Sri.Joseph Kodianthra also contended that under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, plantations were exempted from vesting and vast extent of properties held by the KDHPC Ltd were plantations. He refuted the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings before the Land Board was misguided and not maintainable. Referring to Section 4 of the Act, he contended that the application of KDHPC Ltd was only for restoration of possession under the said 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 14 provision. He hence submitted that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act had no application. Further, he submitted that the provisions of Section 4 do not provide for the hearing of third parties and the Poonjar Kovilakom who have no right other than to receive Rs.3,000/- annually as provided under Ext.P4 ratification had no right to be heard in the proceedings. Referring to paragraph 6 of Ext.P17 order, he submitted that survey records were already available with the Government and also the company when the Land Board considered the petition for restoration. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to Ext.R6(b) proceedings dated 13.10.1977 of the District Collector, Idukki by which lands were restored to KDHPC Ltd pursuant to Ext.P17 order. He therefore contended that there was no scope for any consideration of Ext.P18 petition by the Land Board and hence its rejection by Ext.P19 was perfectly correct.
10. Sri.M.L.Sajeevan, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the contentions of the petitioner with 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 15 regard to the sustainability of Exts.P17 and P19 were without any merits. He submitted that the Poonjar Kovilakom was acting only as an agent of the Travancore Government. He invited attention of the Court to Ext.R3(c), a notice issued by the then Diwan Bahadoor of Travancore Government on 2.6.1898 which warned the public against acquisition of land in Anchanad from the Poonjar Chief. It was stated in the said notice that the Chief of Poonjar Royal family had no rights over the properties. Pointing out Ext.P4 ratification issued by the then Dewan of Travancore, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Poonjar Raja had no independent rights over the properties and therefore the Government of Travancore issued the ratification protecting only the payment of rent by the lessee as agreed with the Poonjar Raja. He further submitted that the title of the subject properties undoubtedly vests with the Government and by Ext.P17 only possession of the lands mentioned in Annexure-6 was granted to KDHPC Ltd. He handed over a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.1/68 of the Sub Court, 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 16 Kottayam, a suit filed by the KDHPC Ltd against the Government. He submitted that the Sub Court held that both proprietary and sovereign rights over the area, subject to the occupancy rights of the KDHPC Ltd, vested with the State. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeals also.
11. The learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out Ext.R3(a) notification published in the official Gazette dated 15.2.1977. The subject lands were demarcated pursuant to Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Ordinance, 1971 and was notified by Ext.R3(a). The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the proceedings before the Land Board was vitiated as no survey was conducted is incorrect in view of Ext.R3(a) notification. He also submitted that, as the Poonjar Kovilakom was only an agent of the Travancore Government, as far as the subject properties are concerned, they need not have been made parties to the proceedings before the Land Board. Hence, he submitted that contentions of the petitioners are without any 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 17 substance.
12. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar appeared for the additional respondents 7 to 15, who are also members of the Poonjar Kovilakom. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the royal proclamation dated 24.9.1899 and submitted that only the sovereign rights were assumed by the Maharaja of Travancore and the rights of the Poonjar Chief arising from the lease deed executed on 11.7.1877 were not taken away. He pointed out that payment of Rs.3,000/- per annum from the successors-in-interest of late Mr.J.D.Munroe was permitted to be received by the Poonjar Chief. He contended that the Poonjar Kovilakom can hence exercise the rights available in their capacity as lessor even now. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the major portion of the subject lands were plantations and therefore exempted under Act 5 of 1971. He referred to paragraph 56 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co.Ltd. v. State of Kerala and another [(1972) 2 SCC 218] which reads 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 18 as follows:-
"56. It seems that if it is held that the land does not fall within the expression 'jenmam right' it may possibly be covered by the decision of this Court in Purushothaman Nambudiri's case (supra), but as arguments were not addressed to us on this point we do not express our final opinion."
13. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the issue of jenmam right was left open by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that the additional respondents are perusing a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession and hence this Court may desist from making any observations and conclusions about the rights claimed by the Poonjar Kovilakom, if the same is not essential for disposal of the instant case.
14. As the two-pronged challenge in the original petition is specifically directed against Exts.P17 and P19 orders of the Land Board, in my view this Court needs to focus only the merits of the challenge against those orders.
2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 19
15. I shall analyse the challenge against Ext P17 first. The main ground of challenge raised by the petitioners against Ext.P17 and proceedings which culminated in the said order of the Land Board is that the Poonjar Kovilakom was a necessary party to the proceedings at the instance of the KDHPC Ltd. Another ground raised is with regard to alleged failure to conduct survey of the properties as provided under Section 6 of the Act 5 of 1971. Other submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are all in elaboration of and in support to the above said specific contentions. Application under Section 4 of the Act was submitted by the KDHPC Ltd. on 15.3.1971 as discernible from Ext.P17 order. Perusal of Ext P17 shows that the application was posted for hearing as provided under Section 4(3) of the Act and the matter was heard on various dates. Affidavits were filed by the KDHPC Ltd. and documents were also produced. The Land Board visited the Kannan Devan Hills area on various dates to inspect the areas 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 20 and to ascertain the lie of the land. After elaborately considering the matter, the order was passed on 29.3.1974. Hence, the proceedings before the Land Board were pending for more than three years after the application was filed by the KDHPC Ltd. It was considered on several dates by the Board and local inspections were also conducted on various dates during those three years. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners made their initial attempt to unsettle Ext.P17 by filing Ext.P18 petition only on 5.4.2002. Hence, the first attempt by the petitioners to challenge Ext.P17 was made after 28 years.
16. Under Section 4(3) of the Act, the Land Board on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) may determine the extent of land necessary for the purpose or purposes specified in the application after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and after such inquiry as it deems necessary. Order passed by the Land Board shall be final. The expression 'after such inquiry as it deems necessary' enables the Land Board to look into all relevant aspects. Hence in an 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 21 appropriate case it may not be outside the purview of the proceedings to hear persons other than the applicant and the Government also. However, question to be considered in the case at hand is as to whether a claim raised after passage of nearly three decades, that the petitioners ought to have been heard in the matter and the failure to hear them has vitiated the proceedings of the Land Board is liable to be entertained.
17. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [(1986) 4 SCC 566 : AIR 1987 SC 251] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus;
"24. ... it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic.' (SCC p. 594, para 24)."
18. In NDMC v. Pan Singh [(2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398], Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 22 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the Apex Court took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court [Pan Singh v. NDMC, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1584] which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
19. In State of Uttarakhand v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari [(2013) 12 SCC 179: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 32], Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches reiterated that even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. It was further held that anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.
2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 23
20. In State of Orissa and another V. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) through LRs and others [(2023)15 SCC 273] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has adverted to several previous judgements, including those referred above, laying down the principles regarding delay and laches.
21. I find considerable force in the argument raised on behalf of the 6th respondent, relying on the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.551/1995 and connected cases. This Court considered several original petitions with respect to the subject lands and addressed the challenges against the order of the Land Board dated 29.3.1974 . Paragraph 33 of the judgment reads thus:-
"33. An attempt was made to challenge the order of the Land Board which ordered restoration of lands under Section 4 of the Resumption of Lands Act on behalf of the local authority. The order of the Land Board under the Resumption of Lands Act was passed early as as on 29.3.1974. I am not satisfied that any ground is made out for interfering with that order at this distance of time.
2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 24 Though it could be said that in the matter of granting exemption under Section 4 of the Act the Land Board has been somewhat generous to the petitioner company, it could not be said that on the base of it, any illegality has been committed by the Land Board in passing the order dt. 29.3.1974. I therefore reject the challenge to that order at this belated stage."
22. It is clear that the challenge was repelled by this Court, though at the instance of others, on the ground that the same was highly belated. The said view was taken by this Court long ago in the year 2000. This writ petition was filed after the said judgment. The petitioners or any others of the Poonjar Kovilakom had not made any attempt during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Board which extended over three years to get impleaded. No attempt was made by them till April, 2002 to get Ext.P17 unsettled. I am of the considered view that the highly belated challenge against Ext.P17 is liable to be rejected for delay and laches. The proposition canvassed 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 25 by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners referring to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in paragraph 7 above, regarding non joinder of Poonjar Kovilakom and granting of relief to KDHPC Ltd is not liable to be entertained at this distant point of time keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments and also taking note of the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.551/1995 and connected cases. Hence the challenge against Ext P 17 order of the Land Board fails.
23. Next issue is the merits of the challenge against Ext P19 order of the Land Board by which Ext P18 petition filed by the petitioners was rejected as not maintainable. Scanning of the provisions of Act 5 of 1971 does not reveal any provision enabling filing of a petition in the nature of Ext.P18. Ext.P17, passed by the Land Board under S. 4 of the Act was sought to be recalled by filing Ext.P18 petition. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:-
2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 26 "4. Restoration of possession of lands in certain cases. (1) Where the person in possession of a plantation considers that any land, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3,-
(a) is necessary for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops in such plantation or for the preparation of the same for the market; or
(b) being agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops, is necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation; or
(c) is necessary for the preservation of an existing plantation, he may, within sixty days from the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, apply to the Land Board for the restoration of possession of such land.
2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 27 (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Land Board shall, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and after such inquiry as it deems necessary, by order determine the extent of land necessary for the purpose or purposes specified in the application, and such order shall be final. (4) As soon as may be after determining the extent of land necessary for the purpose or purposes specified in the application under sub-section (1), the Land Board shall cause such land to be demarcated and put the applicant in possession of such land.
(5) Any person put in possession of any land under sub-section (4) shall be entitled to possess that land on the same terms and subject to the same conditions on or subject to which he was holding such land immediately before the appointed day."
2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 28
24. Under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act 1971, on receipt of an application, the Land Board shall hear the applicant, conduct such inquiry as it deems necessary and thereafter determine the extent of land necessary for the purpose or purposes specified in the application. Such an order passed by the Land Board shall be final. No provision is available in the Act to seek a review of the order passed by the Board. Once the order is passed, the same becomes final and the Land Board is not clothed with any authority to re-open the order. I do not therefore find any impropriety or illegality in the Land Board passing Ext.P19 order holding that Ext.P18 application for recalling Ext.P17 order was not maintainable. I find that that the Land Board lacks any authority under the provisions of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 to revisit the proceedings that were finalised by issuing an order under sub-section (3) of Section 4.
2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 29 The challenge against Exts.P17 and P19 orders of the Land Board therefore fails. The original petition is dismissed. Nevertheless it is made clear that in this writ petition, this Court has not considered the contentions regarding rights of any of the parties with respect to the properties.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 30 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
Ext.P1 CENTRAL VERNACULAR RECORDS SHOW ROOM 18 DOCUMENT CCVI Ext.P2 POONJAR LEASE DEED DTD.11.7.1877.
Ext.P3 POONJAR LEASE DEED DTD.26.7.1879.
Ext.P4 RATIFICATION DEED DTD.26.11.1878.
Ext.P5 MODIFICATION OF TAXES DEED DTD.02.08.1886.
Ext.P6 AGREEMENT ON GRASS LANDS DTD.19.2.1944.
Ext.P7 TRAVANCORE SURVEY LETTER No.46 dtd.06.07.1894.
Ext.P8 Supdt. CARDAMOM HILLS LETTER No.13 dtd.27.01.1908.
Ext.P9 CENTRAL VERNACULAR RECORDS SHOW ROOM 18 DOCUMENT CCVI Ext.P10(A) TRAVANCORE SURVEY LETTER No.990/Dept.568 dtd.09.12.1907.
Ext.P10(B) LETTER FROM MAHARAJA OF TRAVANCORE TO DEWAN dtd.10.12.1907.
Ext.P11 LETTER FROM CHIEF SECRETARY TO POONJAR CHIEF No.11187/LR &F dtd.22.10.1912.
Ext.P12 ADJUDICATED TITLE DEED OF POONJAR IN RESPECT OF KD HILLS 2025:KER:49558 O.P.No.37855 of 2002 31 Ext.P13 LETTER No.210.16 DTD.4.5.1985 FROM TATA TEA LTD.
Ext.P14(A) TAHSILDAR DEVICOLAM LETTER DTD.28.12.1992.
Ext.P14(B) TAHSILDAR DEVICOLAM LETTER DTD.20.07.1994.
Ext.P14(C) TAHSILDAR DEVICOLAM LETTER DTD.05.12.2000.
Ext.P15(A) CENTRAL SURVEY LETTER No.B3.3617/2000 DTD.23.11.2000.
Ext.P15(B) CENTRAL SURVEY AFFIDAVIT IN OP No.2986/2001.
Ext.P16 G.O.2083/96/RD DTD.17.05.1996 FROM STATE OF KERALA.
Ext.P17 LAND BOARD AWARD No.LB(A)2-5227/71 DTD.29.03.1974.
Ext.P18 APPLICATION BEFORE THE LAND BOARD CHALLENGING THE AWARD.
Ext.P19 LAND BOARD ORDER DISMISSING THE SAID APPLICATION.