New Delhi: The Supreme Court on January 21 mocked what it described as the “extreme” nature of socialism being practised in Kerala, observing that the state’s land reforms law appeared to extend even to large corporate entities. The Court cautioned that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act should not be misused to confer benefits on corporates under the guise of tenant protection.
The remarks were made by a bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagaratna while dismissing an appeal filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in a long-pending dispute over a small parcel of land in Ernakulam district. The case related to a petrol pump operating on land that the owner had leased out and later sought to recover.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the manner in which the state’s land reforms legislation was being interpreted. Justice Nagaratna observed that while the objective of land reforms was to protect genuine agricultural tenants and ensure ‘land to the tiller,’ the extension of such protection to commercial and industrial properties raised serious concerns.
“What kind of land reform is this? We understand if it is agricultural property. But even commercial and industrial property is being given. Kerala, that is why we are saying that this is socialism in its extreme. All commercial and industrial property you give to the tenant who may be a big corporate. We can understand land to the tiller,” the judge said, adding that the Court had sought to know whether the validity of Section 106 of the Act itself had been challenged.
The dispute arose from a suit filed in 1994 by the landowner, seeking recovery of possession of about 20 cents of land in Elamkulam Village, Ernakulam. The land had been leased to IOCL and was being used to run a petrol pump through a dealer. After terminating the lease, the owner approached the trial court seeking vacant possession.
The trial court dismissed the suit, relying on the finding of the Land Tribunal that IOCL was entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which grants certain rights to tenants who had constructed buildings on leased land before a specified cut-off date.
On appeal, IOCL claimed that a building had been constructed on the land before May 20, 1967, and that all conditions under Section 106 were satisfied. However, the Kerala High Court found that no evidence had been produced to substantiate this claim. The High Court set aside the trial court’s decree and directed that vacant possession of the land be restored to the plaintiff. Challenging this decision, IOCL approached the Supreme Court in 2011.
The apex court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the High Court’s judgment. It noted that the landowner had been deprived of possession since 1994, when the suit was first filed, and held that the High Court was justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Directing IOCL to restore vacant possession of the land to the heirs of the landowner within six months, the Court also issued strict compliance directions. It ordered the responsible officer of IOCL to file an undertaking within three weeks stating that the corporation would vacate and hand over possession within six months, would not seek any extension of time, would pay all arrears of rent, and would not create any third-party interest in the property. The judgment brings to a close a three-decade-old litigation and signals the Court’s concern over the application of land reform protections to large commercial entities.
