1. Ext.P15 G.O. dated 11.06.2025 is under challenge in this Writ Petition, as per which, landed property having an extent of two acres in the hands of the petitioner Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union ('E.R.C.M.P Union', for short) has been bifurcated, limiting the user of 70 cents to the petitioner/E.R.C.M.P Union and allotting the remaining 130 cents to the 6th respondent/Kerala State Livestock Development Board (the 'K.L.D Board', for short) in connection with a new Scheme of the Central Government. Petitioner/E.R.C.M.P Union essentially contends that a lease of the said land for a period of 99 years, given to the 4th respondent/Federation (under which the petitioner claims), cannot be revoked and resumed in the manner reflected in the impugned Ext.P15. On the other hand, the Government and other respondents, except the 4th respondent (remained ex parte), would contend that there is no concluded lease, as claimed by the petitioner Union; that the chilling plant at Munnar, located in the subject two acres was not transferred to the petitioner/E.R.C.M.P Union; and that their possession simplicitor can very well be revoked and resumed by Ext.P15, for the reasons stated therein. The following chronology of events will unfold the facts which led to the issuance of the impugned Ext.P15 G.O.:
2. The specific case pleaded in the Writ Petition is that the above said two acres of land vests with the petitioner Union and the petitioner had made substantial improvements therein. Ext.P11 possession certificate is relied upon. Thus, the petitioner Union sets up title and ownership over the disputed two acres of land; and the title of the Government is denied. The specific ground canvassed is that, where a party denies title of its rival, only the Civil Courts can declare the title, in terms of the Specific Relief Act. The Government has no power or jurisdiction to declare that the petitioner Union has no title. The contention of the Government that the chilling plant at Munnar was not legally and formally transferred to the petitioner Union is patently incorrect. The lease was for 99 years and the petitioner is entitled to hold the subject property for another 59 years. That being so, Ext.P15 G.O. purporting to divest the petitioner of the title in respect of 130 cents, out of the two acres, is grossly illegal, is the contention urged.
3. The contesting 3rd respondent (the Secretary to the Government, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying) filed a counter affidavit narrating the proceedings which transpired between the various entities and specifically contending, on the basis of Exts.R3(d), R3(f), and R3(i), that the Munnar chilling plant was not formally transferred to the petitioner Union. However, the temporary transfer of the subject land, including the Munnar chilling plant, is seen admitted in paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit, though the 3rd respondent would contend that the Munnar chilling plant was not being operated by the petitioner Union. It was then contended that enough opportunity has been granted to the petitioner Union to produce documents of title, if any, and even within the extended time, no document could be produced by the petitioner. It is accordingly that Ext.P15 Order was passed enabling the 4th respondent K.C.M.M.F (under which the petitioner Union claims) to retain 70 cents of land (out of the subject 2 acres), so as to use the marketing hub and training center currently being run by the petitioner. The said land admeasuring 70 cents includes the old chilling plant building, as well. On such premise, the 3rd respondent seeks the Writ Petition to be dismissed.
4. The 6th respondent is the Kerala State Livestock Development Board, in favour of which, the 130 cents, out of the 2 acres, have been resumed and allotted. A counter affidavit was placed on record by the 6th respondent, essentially toeing in line with the contentions of the 3rd respondent. It is noticeable that both the respondents 3 and 6 would rely upon the same set of documents, more or less.
5. Interestingly, the 4th respondent, the Kerala Co- operative Milk Marketing Federation (K.C.M.M.F) chose to remain ex parte, which conduct has been capitalized by other respondents to submit that, the petitioner Union - claiming under the 4th respondent - cannot stake any independent claim, except through the 4th respondent; and that so long as Ext.P15 is not impugned by the 4th respondent, the petitioner cannot do so independently.
6. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.N.Anand on behalf of the petitioner Union; Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate General and Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation) on behalf of respondents 1 to 3; Smt.O.M.Shalina, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India on behalf of the 5th respondent and Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Millu Dandapani for the 6th respondent/K.L.D. Board. Though notice was served on the 4th respondent/Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (under which the petitioner claims), the 4th respondent had not chosen to enter appearance in these proceedings. Perused the records.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the following points are raised for consideration.
(i) Whether a lease in respect of the subject property having an extent of two acres – where the chilling plant at Munnar is located – has been created in favour of the 4th respondent/ K.C.M.M.M.F?
(ii) Whether the factual findings in Ext.15 G.O. that the chilling plant at Munnar, located in the subject two acres of land, was not transferred by the then K.L.D & M.M Board to the 4th respondent Federation is legally correct and sustainable?
(iii) Whether the Government has the power to terminate the lease? Whether Ext.P15 Order suffers from any illegality or infirmity, in the context of such termination?
8. Point No.(i):- This point pertains to the question whether a lease was created in respect of the subject two acres of land by the Government in favour of the 6th respondent/K.L.D. Board initially, and thereafter, by the K.L.D. Board to the 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F. In this regard, the first document to be taken stock of is Ext.P1, as per which, the Sub Collector, Devikulam, transferred the subject 2 acres of puramboke land in favour of the then Dairy Development Department for installation of a milk chilling plant at Munnar. As per Ext.R3(b)/R6(b) dated 24.04.1976, certain institutions, including the Diaries and chilling plants under Dairy Development Department were transferred to the K.L.D. & M.M. Board (as it existed then). An evaluation of the assets and liabilities of the units transferred was undertaken through a Chartered Accountant, vide Ext.R3(c)/R6(c). Ext.P19 is the Cabinet Minutes dated 08.02.1983 resolving to transfer the commercial units of the K.L.D. & M.M. Board, including the chilling plant to the 4th respondent Federation/K.C.M.M.F on a nominal lease, preparatory to formal transfer. This is in connection with the Operation Flood-II Programme. Ext.P19 resolution was followed by Ext.R3(d)/R6(g) G.O. dated 15.02.1983, recording the formation of the 4th respondent Federation and directing transfer of the chilling plants, dairy plants etc. of the K.L.D. & M.M. Board to the 4th respondent Federation (K.C.M.M.F) on a nominal lease, the formal taking over to be finalized within a period of one year. Ext.P3 dated 24.06.1985 categorically states that the land required for Operation Flood-II Programme will be made available to the 4th respondent Federation on a long-term lease for 99 years, charging a nominal rent. Thereafter, vide Ext.P5 dated 01.10.1986, the chilling plants, including the one at Munnar, was handed over by the 4th respondent Federation (K.C.M.M.F) to the petitioner Union. Ext.R6(d) valuation report of the Chartered Accountant's firm specifically refers to the Munnar chilling plant, vide clause 9(h). It is thereafter that the K.L.D. & M.M. Board changed its name as K.L.D. Board. Again, Ext.P5(a) [same as Exts.R3(f) and R6(i)] G.O. dated 28.03.1990 orders that the assets already transferred on nominal lease basis to the 4th respondent Federation will be transferred permanently.
9. A narration of the above facts would indicate that a lease in favour of the 4th respondent Federation had, in fact, been created, though a formal lease deed was not executed by and between the Government and the 4th respondent Federation; or for that matter, the 6th respondent Board and the 4th respondent Federation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Union, acting under the 4th respondent Federation, is in possession of the subject two acres of land, where the Munnar chilling plant is situated. In the wake of the said telling evidence, speaking through the documents above-referred, clearly indicating a lease in favour of the 4th respondent Federation, the absence of a formal lease deed cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that there was no lease at all, in favour of the 4th respondent Federation. Point no.(i) is therefore concluded in favour of the petitioner Union, which is entitled to claim the benefit of lease in favour of the 4th respondent. While holding so, this Court sideline the technicality of the 4th respondent remaining ex parte and also the contention that the petitioner, in the absence of a claim by the 4th respondent, cannot stake an independent claim in respect of the subject two acres of land. The point found accordingly.
10. Point No.(ii):- This point pertains to the question whether the Munnar chilling plant located in the subject two acres stood excluded from the purview of transfer made by the K.L.D. & M.M. Board (subsequently renamed as K.L.D Board, which is the 6th respondent herein) in favour of the 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F.
11. To answer this issue, this Court will first ascertain whether the Munnar chilling plant was the subject matter of transfer/lease at the hands of the K.L.D. and M.M.Board. As could be seen from the chronology of events, the K.L.D. & M.M.Board was constituted in the year, 1975 and the dairies and chilling plants of the Dairy Development Department was transferred to the K.L.D. & M.M. Board as per Ext.R3(a)/R6(a) dated 25.06.1975. Ext.R3(b)/R6(b) dated 24.04.1976 reiterates such transfer of dairies and chilling plants by the Dairy Development Department to the K.L.D. & M.M. Board. Thereafter, the Kerala Government, vide Ext.P2, decided to extend the Operation Flood–II programme to Kerala. In the year 1983, by Ext.P19 cabinet decision, it was resolved to transfer the commercial units of the K.L.D. & M.M. Board, including the chilling plants, to R4 K.C.M.M.F, on a nominal lease preparatory to transfer. This decision was translated to action by Ext.R3(d)/R6(g), which speaks of the necessity to do away with two agencies of the Government and to merge the commercial units of the K.L.D. & M.M. Board. Such units, including the chilling plants and dairy plants were decided to be transferred to R4 K.C.M.M.F by the K.L.D Board and a Committee to value the assets of the Board was also constituted. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 G.O. dated 24.06.1985, it was resolved to make available the land required for Operation Flood-II programme to the K.C.M.M.F on a long term lease for a period of 99 years, charging a nominal rent. It is accordingly that R4 K.C.M.M.F claims that the dairies and chilling plants, including the one at Munnar located in the subject two acres of land, were also handed over to the K.C.M.M.F under a lease arrangement and consequently, by virtue of Ext.P5, the K.C.M.M.F handed over the chilling plants, including the one at Munnar, to its regional entity, that is to say, the petitioner/E.R.C.M.P. Union.
12. Ext.R6(e) G.O. dated 11.12.1986 is also relevant in this regard, which specifically refers to the chilling plant at Munnar, vide clause 9(h). Valuation report by the Chartered Accountant's Firm, vide Ext.R6(e), specifically refers to the value of eight chilling plants, obviously, inclusive of the one at Munnar, as Rs.18,44,925.71/-. Ext.P5(a)/R3(f)/R6(i), a G.O. dated 28.03.1990, directed that the assets transferred on nominal lease basis will be transferred permanently to the K.C.M.M.F. Fiscal arrangements are also seen reflected in the said exhibits.
13. As against the above telling evidence and circumstances pointing to the transfer of all chilling plants, including the one at Munnar, in favour of K.C.M.M.F, learned Advocate General would place reliance upon Ext.P5(b)/R3(i)/R6(j) to contend that chilling plants at Munnar has not been transferred to R4 K.C.M.M.F. Ext.P5(b)/R6(j)/R3(i) is a G.O. dated 07.11.1998 issued to effect certain modification to an earlier G.O (M.S) No.101/90/AD dated 28.03.1990, which was issued for the transfer of assets and liabilities. A perusal of the said documents would indicate that the same is issued for making necessary re-adjustments in the valuation and also for making necessary arrangements as regards the issuance of shares etc. The G.O. takes stock of the fact that some of the properties, which were given grant of by the Government, belonged to the K.L.D Board in fact, which necessitated necessary financial re-arrangement. The point which was emphasised by the learned Advocate General is clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j) G.O., which deals with the land; wherein the Munnar chilling plant does not find a place. Under clause 5.0, lands specified therein - which originally belonged either to the Government or K.L.D Board and which has been transferred to the Federation/Union - will be considered as one given on long term lease by the State to K.C.M.M.F on payment of a nominal lease rent. Inasmuch as the chilling plant of Munnar does not find a place in clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j), the same has not been transferred to the K.C.M.M.F, is the argument advanced.
14. This Court finds itself unable to accept that argument, for the reason that Ext.R6(j) issued in the year 1998 cannot nullify the effect of the transactions which transpired earlier, more so, when there is no specific reference to that effect in Ext.R6(j). As indicated already, Exts.P3, P5, P19, R3(b), R3(d) and R6(e) demonstrate that the diaries and the chilling plants – including the chilling plant of Munnar - has been transferred to the K.C.M.M.F, which is now in the hands of the petitioner Union, vide Ext.P5. There is also no dispute of the fact that the petitioner Union is in the possession of the said land, which necessitated the issuance of the impugned Ext.P15 Order resuming the land back, for the purpose of user by the 6th respondent. In such circumstances, for the mere reason that Ext.R6(j) at clause 5.0, does not refer to the chilling plant at Munnar, by itself, cannot be taken in isolation to conclude that the chilling plant at Munnar was never the subject matter of lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F. This is all the more so when Ext.R6(j) does not specifically says so. When an event, with respect to the transfer of all chilling plants – without there being any reservation as regards exclusion of any chilling plant – has become a fait accompli, which garnered reiteration by a specific reference of the chilling plant at Munnar in Ext.R6(e) G.O., the non-mention of the Munnar chilling plant in Ext.R6(j), at clause 5.0, cannot be assigned any extra significance or evidentiary value, as against other G.O.s. If the Government or the competent body under it wants to limit the transfer to the land specifically made mention of in clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j), the same should have been expressly spelt out, besides resuming the possession of the subject two acres of land for the Munnar chilling plant from K.C.M.M.F, in a manner known to law. The same having not been done, the contention that the chilling plant at Munnar was never the subject matter of lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F cannot be sustained and the contention will stand rejected. Point No.(ii) concluded accordingly.
15. Point No.(iii):- This point pertains to the power of the Government to terminate a lease and to resume the land for Government or public purposes. By virtue of the impugned Ext.P15 Order, the Government gave permissive sanction to R4 Federation/E.R.C.M.P.U to retain 70 cents of land, out of the total lease area of 2 acres; and allotted the remaining 130 cents to the K.L.D Board for being used for the new scheme, after obtaining necessary permission from the Central Government. Virtually, 130 cents of leased area have been resumed and allotted to another entity under the Government. The legality of the above action is under challenge.
16. The premise under which Ext.P15 has been issued is that the Munnar chilling plant was not handed over to R4 Federation/K.C.M.M.F, when the K.L.D & M.M Board was split into two entities, namely, K.L.D Board and K.C.M.M.F, followed by the transfer of the chilling plants under K.L.D & M.M Board to K.C.M.M.F. This Court, while answering point no.(i) found that the above premise is factually incorrect. However, that finding, by itself, will not make Ext.P15 illegal. The question which looms large is whether the Government has power to resume the lease area given to the K.C.M.M.F or for that matter, E.R.C.M.P.U under K.C.M.M.F - treating that the Munnar chilling plant was also handed over to K.C.M.M.F. There is no quarrel that the nature of transaction in favour of K.C.M.M.F is a lease in respect of Government land.
Assignment of Government land, which includes a lease as well, is governed by the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960. Under Section 2(a), assignment includes transfer of land by way of lease and grant of license for the use of land. Section 3, the enabling provision, contemplates assignment of Government land, either absolutely, or subject to restrictions, limitations and conditions, as prescribed. Section 4 speaks about the procedure for assignment and Section 5, about the order of assignment. Under the power to make Rules in terms of Section 7 of the Act, the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 was introduced. Under Rule 2(c) also, 'assignment' means transfer of land by way of registry and includes a lease and a grant of license for the use of the land. It could thus be seen that assignment is broadly divided into two categories, namely, registry of land; and lease and license of land. The latter category is provided for in Rule 13, under the heading 'Leases and Licenses'. Rule 13 contemplates lease of Government land, which are likely to be required in future for Government or public purposes, but not immediately. Rule 13(c) deals with 'lease of land under any scheme approved by the Government'. Rule 14 speaks about the period of lease. For leases covered by Rule 13(c), the maximum period is 20 years and the maximum extent is 8.0937 hectares, if the Order is issued by the District Collector. Proviso to Rule 14(3) stipulates that, in cases where the scheme approved by the Government itself specifies the period of lease and extent, the grant shall be limited to such period and extent. The subject lease, having been given in connection with Operation Flood-II scheme, can be considered under that proviso only. Rule 15(3) is important, which prohibits determination of lease at the instance of the assignee during the currency thereof; whereas Rule 15(4) empowers the competent authority to terminate the lease, after giving 60 days notice in writing to the assignee, if the land is required for Government or public purposes. In case of violation of condition by the assignee, the grant can be terminated after giving reasonable notice, not exceeding 15 days. Rule 15(4) is extracted here below:
“15. Conditions of lease and licence.-
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) xxx
(4) It shall be competent for the authority who granted the lease or licence, to terminate the same, after giving sixty days' notice, in writing, to the assignee, if the land or portion thereof is required for Government or public purposes. The grant shall also be liable to termination, [after giving reasonable notice, not exceeding fifteen days], if the assignee violates any of the conditions of the grant order.”
17. It is therefore clear that the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, has the power to terminate the lease, after issuing necessary notice, as per law. The instant lease, as originally conceived vide Ext.P1, was under G.O.(P) No.881/65/Rev dated 25.05.1965, which contemplates transfer of Government lands between departments of the Government, upto a maximum of 2 acres. Thereafter, the concept of lease is reflected in Ext.P19 Cabinet Notes, as per which, it was resolved to transfer the commercial units of the K.L.D & M.M Board, including the chilling plants, to R4 Federation (K.C.M.M.F) on a nominal lease, preparatory to formal transfer. In the instant case, there is no document evidencing a formal transfer, except a lease created through Government decisions and Orders. Government Orders produced at Ext.R3(d) and Ext.P3 would reflect the decision to give the properties, including the chilling plants, on a long-term lease to the Federation.
18. In short, since the land in question, which is given on lease is Government land, the same can only be governed by the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Government vide Ext.P15 - after taking stock of the fact that the buildings in the subject land are dilapidated and that the petitioner E.R.C.M.P.U is maintaining and using only one building - arrived at a satisfaction that the resumption of 130 cents of the leased area is required for the Kerala Livestock Development Board in connection with the project to be established as per the scheme of the Central Government. A perusal of paragraph no.11 of Ext.P15 would indicate that a Special Committee was formed by the Government.
Thereafter, there were deliberations by the Chairman and Managing Directors of the Federation/K.C.M.M.F and K.L.D Board at the chambers of the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. The fact that K.C.M.M.F failed to produce documents showing their title over the property, was taken note of. It is thereafter that the operative directions in Ext.P15 have been given for resumption of land, to the extent of 130 cents.
19. Having referred to the above aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the fact situation is fully traceable to Rule 15(4) the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, whereby the Government has found the necessity to use the land for the purposes of K.L.D Board, which obviously is a public purpose. It is also noteworthy that, what is being resumed is not the entire leased area, but only 130 cents, after permitting the petitioner to retain 70 cents required for its purposes.
20. The last issue for consideration is whether 60 days' notice has been given to the petitioner Union in order to vacate the 130 cents of land, directed to be resumed vide the impugned Ext.P15. In this regard, it is relevant to note that a meeting was held by the Minister concerned on 01.02.2024, to resolve the rival claims over the disputed 2 acres of land. A Special Committee was constituted. The members of the Committee visited the property on 21.03.2024 and preferred a report. For examining the report, a meeting was conducted on 24.05.2024 by the Secretary to the Government, the Chairmen and the Managing Directors of the 4th respondent Federation and the 6th respondent K.L.D Board. In that meeting, the failure on the part of the petitioner Union, or for that matter the 4th respondent Federation, to produce the documents of title, was taken note of. Thereafter a further meeting was held on 16.05.2025 by the Minister for Animal Husbandary, Dairy Development and Milk Co-operatives, in which meeting the petitioner Union did not attend. It is thereafter that the impugned Ext.P15 Order was issued on 11.06.2025.
21. The above narration would amplify that sufficient notice had been given to the petitioner Union. The very purpose of stipulating 60 days' notice to the lessee under the Government is to enable it to relocate from the leased out premises to another. When that purpose is amply served, the situation is governed by the doctrine of substantial compliance. Moreover, in the instant case, there arises no question of any re-location, since an extent of 70 cents required for the present operation of the petitioner Union had been retained in the impugned Ext.P15 Order. Therefore, this Court concludes that there is no violation of the notice period stipulated in Rule 15(4) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules.
In the light of the above discussion, the instant Writ Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |