Taking Over Land Affecting Fully Functional Operating Unit Generating Employment Would Be Against Policy Of Industrial Land Allotment: Kerala HC Allows Company’s Plea
The Kerala High Court allowed an Appeal of a company against the Order of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam.
The Kerala High Court allowed an Appeal filed by a company- M/s. Mothers Agro Foods (P) Ltd., challenging the Order of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam to resume the land allotted in the Industrial Development Area of Angamaly.
The Court said that, taking over land affecting fully functional operating unit generating employment would be against the policy of allotment of industrial land.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed, “The Appellant has taken a loan from the Bank and mortgaged the property with the consent of the Department. Even today, the rice mill activity is being carried out, construction is in place, large-scale employment is being generated, and substantial turnover is being achieved. In the facts and circumstances, taking over the land as per Exhibit-P6 order dated 23 August 2012, thereby seriously affecting a fully functional operating unit generating employment, would be against the policy of allotment of industrial land itself. Therefore, the intervention of this Court in equity jurisdiction is necessary.”
Advocate Praveen K. Joy appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni and Senior Government Pleader V. Tekchand appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant Company was allotted a land in the Industrial Development Area at Angamaly, Ernakulam District by the Respondent in 2003. As per the Appellant, when it sought consent from the State Pollution Control Board, it was informed that the unit could not be allowed to be established in the absence of an effluent treatment plant. The Appellant needed two more acres of land for the effluent treatment plant and applied for additional land to erect the plant. At that time, another unit from the industrial area became defunct and an extent of area which was lying unutilised by it, was resumed by the Department. The Appellant received the required additional land in 2007 and when it started construction of the unit, another entrepreneur made complaints to various authorities such as the Forest Department, Industries Department, etc. The Appellant received clearance from the Forest Department in 2010.
Thereafter, the said entrepreneur made a complaint to the Industries Department and sought a prohibitory order against the Appellant. The revised plan submitted by the Appellant was approved with a condition to complete the construction within 26 months. The aggrieved entrepreneur filed a Writ Petition and the Single Judge disposed of the same directing that if there is any vacant land available, it should be allotted to him and if no such land is available, the department will consider whether any land in the industrial area remains unutilized, then the same be allotted after the resumption. Being aggrieved by this, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Division Bench and in the meanwhile, the department passed an order directing resumption of the land allotted to the Appellant. The Appellant challenged this Order and the Single Judge dismissed its Petition. Challenging this, the Appellant was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “We find no merit in the contentions of the Department and Respondent No.4. In furtherance of focusing on the Appellant alone without equity of other surplus lands, the Department proceeded to take a hyper-technical approach in the matter to somehow cancel the allotment without considering various other aspects.”
The Court further noted that the Advocate Commissioner placed material on record to show that the rice mill is still being operated today and it is also clear that the contention of the Department that resumption of the part of the land will not affect the functioning of the unit is not correct. It added that the contention of the Appellant that it will adversely affect is borne out by the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
“Thus, Exhibit-P6 order dated 23 August 2012 issued by the Department was based on a flawed interpretation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which the Division Bench subsequently clarified. Respondent No. 4 has continuously filed complaints against the Appellant, and the impugned order passed by the Department based on the stray observation of the learned Single Judge is a needlessly technical approach. Respondent No. 4, upon the land being allotted to him, had sold part of its property and, therefore, the Appellant alleges that Respondent No. 4 is only pursuing the litigation out of a vendetta”, it also said.
The Court observed that the Department did not consider various factors such as sanctioning of the plans, almost 70% of the land being utilised, and the rice mill being conducted.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- M/s. Mothers Agro Foods (P) Ltd. v. General Manager, District Industries Centre & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:3732)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Praveen K. Joy, T.A. Joy, E.S. Saneej, M.P. Unnikrishnan, N. Abhilash, Deepu Rajagopal, Albin Varghese, Abisha E.R., and Fathima Shalu S.
Respondents: Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni, SGP V. Tekchand, Advocates T. Sivadasan, Meena A., and Vinod Ravindranath.
