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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
(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
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
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
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
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.
