Government can’t act like Robin Hood, Harrisons’ claim bona fide: Kerala high court

KOCHI: The

Kerala high court

on Wednesday set aside the orders of special officer M G Rajamanickam for taking over around 38,000 acres of land in possession of

Harrisons Malayalam Ltd

(HML) under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The disputed land constitutes around 3.5% of Idukki district that spreads over 4,358 sq km or 10.76 lakh acres.

Maintaining that the state government had got the basics wrong, a division bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and

Ashok Menon

ruled that the special officer cannot decide on the title and also carry out eviction. The government can decide the title only through a civil court as it is a bona fide dispute. The special officer can carry out eviction under provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act (KLCA) only if the land belonged to the government, it held.

The court also chided the government for giving into public outcry and acting like Robin Hood. “The government is for the people, of and by them, but it is not for the masses alone but exists for each individual. Courage and conviction is lacking when on mere public demand, arbitrary action is perpetrated visiting a citizen with prejudice. A corporate entity also contributes to the mite of a nation and is constituted of citizens at its helm and at its foundational conglomeration of labour force and managerial staff. The Welfare State exists for the downtrodden and the marginalised, but cannot act like Robin Hood; which would be a negation of democratic principles and blatant flouting of rule of law…,” the judgment said. ‘Govt can approach civil court to establish title’

On powers of the special officer, the court said allegations of fraud, forgery and collusion levelled by the government would have to be pleaded and proved before a competent court and the special officer cannot arrogate the powers of a civil court to himself in a proceeding for eviction under the authority conferred under the KLCA.

It said even the right of an occupier to challenge eviction and establish title before a civil court is reserved under Section 20 of the KLCA.

“We have to note that in the present case, the petitioners do not claim right to continue holding their properties only on the basis of possession; they assert title which has been accepted by the State for long, as is evident from the revenue records and payment of tax and duties on land, as the owner in absolute possession. When even a valid possession without title can be interfered with only by recourse to court, there can be no summary eviction under the KLC Act…there can be no summary eviction under the KLC Act, of the petitioners who assert title which already has been found to be a bona fide claim,” the judgment said.

The court said the government can approach a civil court to establish title if required. “The title, we reiterate, in this context, we have not found on the petitioners, which we are incompetent to do so in the present proceedings. Title, has to be found after adducing evidence in a properly initiated civil proceeding, if the State ventures so, to institute,” it said.