JUDGMENT : 1. A voluntary organization by name one earth one life registered under the Travancore Cochin Scientific Literary and Charitable Societies Act has come up with Writ Petition (C) No. 28496/2016 for a declaration that the fragmentation and sale of Kinalur estate, (hereinafter referred to as the estate) a rubber plantation for non-plantation purposes, by the 10th respondent, M/s. Cochin Malabar and Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the company), is illegal as it will defeat the purpose of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The petitioner is also challenging a Notification of the State Government dated 27.11.2015 granting exemption of stamp duty for registration of sale deeds in respect of private sale causing a loss of Rs. 2,39,56,220/- to the State Exchequer. 2. Facts, relevant, are stated in brief:- The estate is a rubber plantation having a total extent of 2438 acres (987.27 hectares) comprised in re-survey Nos. 94, 95/1, 102/2, 103, 104, 105/1, 105/4, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114/1, 114/3 of Kinalur village, R.S. No. 2000/2, 2000/5, 1996/2, 1985/2, 1981/1, 1981/3, 1640/3, 1644, 1648/2, 1670/3, 1671/2, 1522/2, 2026/4 of Kanthalad village, R.S. 1/1, 1/3, 1/5,3, 117/1, 118/A of Unnikulam Village. R.S. No. 1/2, 1/3 of Raroth Village, R.S. No. 81, 83/1, 83/4, 83/5, 84, 85 of Kozhikode District. Respondent No. 10, the company is the owner of the estate. This estate comes under the exempted category under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short KLR Act) as it is a rubber plantation. Due to some financial problems in the year 2001 the company decided to sell 450 acres which constitute the Thamarassery Division of Kinalur estate and the said idea was conveyed to one Sri. Jose Kynadi, the 12th respondent who is engaged in the real estate business and his business partner Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty. The company appointed the 12th respondent as a labour consultant to the company, for a period of one year on 1.2.2002 as per Ext.P1 to advise the company in the matters regarding the settlement of dues of its employees the respondents 14 to 17 are the recognized workers Union of the estate. Later the company decided to sell the entire estate as per its resolution dated 7.9.2002. Consequently, on 27.7.2003 the company entered into an agreement with Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty, he being the highest bidder for sale of the entire estate for a sale consideration of Rs. 31.10 Crores. Later the company decided to sell the entire estate as per its resolution dated 7.9.2002. Consequently, on 27.7.2003 the company entered into an agreement with Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty, he being the highest bidder for sale of the entire estate for a sale consideration of Rs. 31.10 Crores. The dispute of the laborers with the company was also amicably settled on 28.2.2003 as per Ext.P2 settlement agreement. As per Ext.P2, the company has to pay all the statutory liabilities of the permanent workers, including gratuity as the workers agreed to resign voluntarily from the estate. In addition to the above the company has to pay to all permanent workers 10 days' salary per year for the number of completed years of service per worker as ex gratia. All permanent workers will be paid ex-gratia at the rate of 25 days' salary for every year for the remaining service up to the completion of the age of 58 years. It was also agreed by the purchaser Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty that the permanent workers on the rolls of the estate staying in the labor line will be given an extent of 3 cents of land in the labour line and 100 cents of land elsewhere and permanent workers who do not stay in labour line will be given 103 cents. The workers have to bear the stamp duty, registration and documentation charges to register the land as per the settlement. This agreement itself is illegal as it was made with an intention to fragment the estate and to sell it to strangers under the guise of settling the dispute of the workers. On 28.2.2003, 10th respondent issued Ext.P3 letter to the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Calicut stating that the company decided to sell the estate after settling all the liabilities of the workers as per law and the compensation will be paid by Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty, who is the proposed purchaser of the estate. Thereafter, C.A. No. 75/2003 was also filed before the Company Law Board seeking permission to conclude the sale of the properties in terms of the decision of the Board of Directors. The said application was disposed of on 7.11.2003 by Ext.P4. 3. Thereafter, C.A. No. 75/2003 was also filed before the Company Law Board seeking permission to conclude the sale of the properties in terms of the decision of the Board of Directors. The said application was disposed of on 7.11.2003 by Ext.P4. 3. Thereafter the company filed I.A. No. 1464/2003 in O.A. No. 167/2000 on the files of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, to conduct the sale of Kinalur estate in terms of the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 7.9.2002, but by Ext P5 the application was dismissed on 12.5.2004 as the bidder had not deposited the bid amount. Thereafter two shareholders of the 10th respondent company filed O.S. No. 131/2005 on the files of the Sub Court, Kozhikode for a decree of declaration that the company had no right to sell the estate in the light of the order of the Company Law Board and for injunction to restrain the sale of the estate. As per an order dated 8.7.2005 in I.A. No. 1329/2005 in O.S. No. 131/2005, the company was restrained from selling the estate to Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty or to strangers. As per Ext.P6 order dated 24.11.2005 in I.A. No. 2546/2005, a receiver was also appointed and he was put in possession of the properties. The said orders were challenged before the District Court, Kozhikode but the same were dismissed by a common Judgment. The said judgment was challenged before this Court through Writ Petition (W.P. (C) No. 3417/2006) but it was also dismissed. Later O.S. No. 131/2005 on the files of the Sub Court, Kozhikode was withdrawn to this Court and it was numbered as Company Case No. 7/2006 in Company Petition No. 49/2004. Due to the pendency of the said petition, this Court by Ext.P7 ordered that any person found to be in possession of any portion of the estate would have to be dispossessed unless he is in occupation under the control of the Receiver. Later the company petition was dismissed and the company case was also dismissed holding that the cause of action does not survive since the recovery order issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal had been duly discharged. The stand of the Government that by virtue of Section 81 of the KLR Act, the company cannot claim any benefit in view of the change of nature of the user of the land. The stand of the Government that by virtue of Section 81 of the KLR Act, the company cannot claim any benefit in view of the change of nature of the user of the land. While so by Ext P8 letter the company intimated the Receiver that the company has neither agreed nor has any liability to allot land to the workers and it is only Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty had promised to give 1.03 acres of land to the workers somewhere else and he has not acquired title and he cannot sell the estate to the workers. The company also intimated that there were 41 Supervisors and 415 workers as on 31.3.2003. As Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty failed to pay the balance amount the agreement was terminated by the company. Later the 6th respondent, the Taluk Land Board (for short TLB) issued a letter to the 8th respondent Sub Registrar, Balussery directing not to register the sale deeds relating to transfer of land in respect of the estate as it was intended to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act. A public notice was also issued by the Director of the company stating that Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty or his partner Sri. Jose Kainady along with former Director one Rajendra Kanthilal are intending to sell portions of the estate though they have no right or authority to sell the estate or to enter into any agreement for sale of the estate. However, Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty entered into several agreements for sale of the estate before he acquired title and he executed and registered 119 sale deeds before the District Registrar, Kozhikode, 220 sale deeds before the 9th respondent and 140 sale deeds before the 8th respondent in violation of the order of the 7th respondent. So it was clear that the plantation was fragmented for non-plantation. Thereupon the TLB Koyilandi initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 87 of the KLR Act against the company directing to surrender 335 acres. The company contended that the agreement was cancelled with Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty and the company had no intention to convert the estate. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 11.1.2012 by the Additional Labour Commissioner for registering the land in the name of the workers and Ext.P9 letter was issued. The company contended that the agreement was cancelled with Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty and the company had no intention to convert the estate. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 11.1.2012 by the Additional Labour Commissioner for registering the land in the name of the workers and Ext.P9 letter was issued. Due to the high political influence of respondent No. 12 and the purchasers of the estate and the unholy alliance of the land mafia, a meeting was held on 20.3.2012 headed by the then Chief Minister Sri. Oommen Chandy, then Electricity Minister Aryadan Muhammed and Sri. Kunjalikutty and Minister for Labour, Sri. Shibu Baby Goerge, MLA and the Labour Commissioner in which it was decided to permit the fragmentation of the estate and to register the sale deeds in favour of persons in possession and to exempt the registration charges and also to grant income tax exemption, if the management submits an application for the same. Ext.P10 is the copy of the minutes. This decision was not at all in public interest and it was only to help the land mafia and the private persons with ulterior motive. Consequently, the TLB dropped the proceedings holding that no land was converted into non exempted category. However, the 6th respondent intimated the 8th respondent that the prohibition not to register the sale deeds relating to transfer of land in respect of the estate is not lifted and it is valid until the proceedings of the TLB is approved by the State Land Board. The Sub Registrar, Thamarassery/the 8th respondent issued Ext P13 letter to the District Registrar making it clear that no further orders had been issued in the matter or lifting the prohibition order regarding the registration of sale deeds in respect of Kinalur estate. The State Land Board requested the Government to file revision but the then Advocate General gave opinion that there is no scope for filing revision. In the meanwhile on 10.12.2012 Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty died. Respondent No. 13 is his legal heir. Then on 20.8.2013 the company, Sri. Jose Kynadi, the 12th respondent along with respondent No. 13 entered into a settlement agreement regarding the sale of the estate for a sale consideration of Rs. 55,54,97,251/- and that the Board of Directors authorised one C.P. Sharma on 7.10.2013 to execute conveyance deeds for sale of the estate to the legal heirs or nominees of Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty. Jose Kynadi, the 12th respondent along with respondent No. 13 entered into a settlement agreement regarding the sale of the estate for a sale consideration of Rs. 55,54,97,251/- and that the Board of Directors authorised one C.P. Sharma on 7.10.2013 to execute conveyance deeds for sale of the estate to the legal heirs or nominees of Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty. Thereafter, a representation was submitted to the then Chief Minister by the 11th respondent/a Trade Union for granting exemption to 540 workers from paying stamp duty for the lands to be registered in their name. That request was quite contrary to the terms and settlement mentioned earlier that the labourers will bear the expenses for stamp duty and registration charges. According to the company, there were only 456 workers in service as on 31.3.2003. However, in the representation submitted before the Chief Minister, 84 workers had also been added. Thereafter, the Additional Secretary to Government Taxes Department submitted a report stating that a loss of Rs. 2,39,56,220/- will be caused to the revenue exchequer, if the workers are exempted from paying the stamp duty. But the Chief Minister and the Law Minister ordered that since there was an agreement with the management and Trade Unions that 1.03 acres of land will be registered in the name of 533 workers as service benefits and the workers have already remitted stamp duty in 2005 at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, they cannot afford to pay the same again. In fact, there is no such agreement with the workers and management and no enquiry was conducted to verify whether 533 workers had paid stamp duty in 2005. 4. However, the Council of Ministers on 5.3.2014 decided to grant exemption of stamp duty of Rs. 2,39,56,220/- for registration of sale deeds in respect of 533 workers, when it was placed for consideration. 4. However, the Council of Ministers on 5.3.2014 decided to grant exemption of stamp duty of Rs. 2,39,56,220/- for registration of sale deeds in respect of 533 workers, when it was placed for consideration. Thereafter, on 24.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 the 3rd respondent had discussion with the State Land Board Secretary, Land Revenue Commissioner and the Inspector General of Registration regarding the legal problems and thereafter it was decided that it is not legally possible to transfer the property directly in the name of workers and that only after the Government acquire the same, it can be assigned as per the provisions of KLR Act and if the land is assigned as per the special permission of the Government, the question of granting exemption from remitting the stamp duty does not arise and to place the matter before the Revenue and the Law departments with permission of the Chief Minister for taking decision for resuming the estate to the Government (Ext.P16). The Chief Minister again directed the 5th respondent to examine whether the non-registration of sale deeds in respect of the lands in the name of workers of estate would not amount to denial of equity as the sale deeds in respect of the lands in the name of 479 agriculturist had been already registered. The State Land Board Secretary, Land Revenue Commissioner and the inspector General of Registration pointed out that the estate cannot be fragmented. It was pointed out by the 3rd respondent that some workers have already got their sale deeds registered without any exemption of stamp duty. The 3rd respondent also requested to review the decision of the Cabinet Ministers for granting exemption of stamp duty. This view was endorsed by the Principal Secretary of Finance Department and the Chief Secretary. Thereafter, the Law Minister ordered that there is no necessity to place the issue again before the Cabinet and the Chief Minister endorsed the view. Thereafter, on 27.11.2015 the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P18 G.O. (P) No. 208/205/TD remitting the stamp duty chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 on the instruments of conveyance of an extent of 23025.498 Ares of land in favour of 464 employees of the estate. Thereafter, on 27.11.2015 the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P18 G.O. (P) No. 208/205/TD remitting the stamp duty chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 on the instruments of conveyance of an extent of 23025.498 Ares of land in favour of 464 employees of the estate. Pursuant to the said G.O. sale deeds are being registered without paying stamp duty and respondent No. 13 is collecting the sale deeds from the Sub Registry Offices of Balussery and Thamarassery and he is handing over the sale deeds to the workers only after collecting the stamp duty and other expenses. 30 workers got their sale deeds registered and another list of workers were forwarded to the Government by respondent No. 12 who is a high profile real estate agent having high level political connection. It is learnt that after execution of settlement on 28.2.2003 all the 456 workers entrusted the stamp duty and registration charges prevailing upon that time, with the respondent No. 12 and he misappropriated the said amount. In fact he was the only person benefited by exemption of stamp duty in favour of workers. On 1.3.2012 itself the 4th respondent issued direction to all District Collectors that no plantation exempted under Section 81(C) of the KLR Act can be fragmented and sell it for non-plantation purpose and that no mutation shall be effected in respect of such land and any attempt to convert plantations shall be reported to the Government. The State Government is bound to resume 2438 acres of land in accordance with law as the action of the company is illegal. The reliefs sought for by this organization are: (i) Declare that the fragmentation and sale of Kinalur Estate by 10th respondent was illegal and to defeat the purpose of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to Ext.P18 and quash the same. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to take immediate and effective steps to recover 2438 acres of the Kinalur Estate comprised in R.S. No. 94, 95/1, 102/2, 103,104,105/1, 105/4, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114/1, 114/3 of Kinalur village, R.S. No. 2000/2, 2000/5, 1996/2, 1985/2, 1981/1, 1981/3, 1640/3, 1644, 1648/2, 1670/3, 1671/2, 1522/2, 2026/4 of Kanthalad village, R.S. 1/1, 1/3, 1/5,3, 117/1, 118/A of Unnikulam, Village. R.S. No. 1/2, 1/3 of Raroth Village, R.S. No. 81, 83/1, 83/4, 83/5, 84, 85 in Kozhikode District in accordance with law. (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising of officers of proven integrity to investigate into the transactions leading to the sale of 2438 acres of the Kinalur estate and to prosecute the persons involved in such illegal transactions in accordance with law. (v) Grant such other reliefs that may be deemed fit to this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice. 5. The 4th respondent filed statement inter-alia contending that the TLB, Koyilandy initiated suo motu proceedings on the basis of the report received from the authorised officer that certain extent of land from the estate was sold in pieces and the purchasers slaughtered the rubber trees and started unauthorised construction. The State Land Board also authorised the TLB to initiate proceedings under Section 87 of the KLR Act. The TLB requested the Sub Registrars not to register sale deeds invoking their power under Section 120A of the KLR Act. Then on accepting the contention of company that no land was converted into non-exempted category, the TLB found that the Company was not liable to surrender an extent of 335.01 acres as proposed in the draft statement. The Company initiated proceedings to sell 450 acres and entered into agreement with Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty. There was a proposal to transfer 1.03 acres of land to each workers in discharge of their service benefits and therefore, there was a request for exemption of stamp duty. The Government granted exemption to achieve the object of promoting agriculture as per Annexure R4(a) and to hand over 600 acres of land to 533 employees of the company. The Company was granted exemption treating the land occupied by the Company as rubber plantation. But some of the workers constructed residential house in the land assigned to them and the Revenue Department needs more time to enquire about the occupation of the land assigned to the workers. The Revenue Department objected registration of sale deeds only to protect the illegal bifurcation of the plantation. 6. The Respondents 11, 14 and 15 opposed the petition, inter-alia, contending the sale of Kinalur estate was the subject matter of various litigations and all those cases were closed by Ext.R11(a) judgment of this Court in Company Appeal No. 6/2010. The Revenue Department objected registration of sale deeds only to protect the illegal bifurcation of the plantation. 6. The Respondents 11, 14 and 15 opposed the petition, inter-alia, contending the sale of Kinalur estate was the subject matter of various litigations and all those cases were closed by Ext.R11(a) judgment of this Court in Company Appeal No. 6/2010. It is revealed that the 10th respondent company in order to free itself of some mounting debts decided to sell the rubber plantation and the said decision was questioned by two share holders at various stages but the court upheld the decision to sell the property. In the process of sale the company first invited tenders from various persons and Sri P.K.C. Ahammedkutty was the highest bidder, who offered a sum of Rs. 31 crores. The said bid was accepted and as per the agreement dated 27.7.2003 Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty was empowered to sell the estate in parcels to third parties and made it obligatory on his part to transfer 1.03 acres of land in favour of the employees of the estate as retrenchment benefits. Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty entered into agreement with some farmers of the locality for the sale of portions of the estate and substantial portion of consideration was paid to the company and the farmers were put in possession of their respective lands. Meanwhile there was a change in the management of the company and the management was not initially in favour of the transaction and a suit was filed before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode by another shareholder and an injunction order was granted against the registration of sale deeds, despite the fact that substantive number of sale deeds, mainly around 600 had already been executed by one of the Directors and they were about to be presented for registration. Thereafter the suit was withdrawn to this Court and disposed of and thus protected the possession of the farmers and labourers but refused registration of sale deeds in their favour. Meantime 869 sale deeds executed became invalid due to non-registration of the sale deeds within the time allowed and the farmers and labourers who paid the stamp duty were made to suffer the loss in this regard and that invited the attention of political parties. Meantime 869 sale deeds executed became invalid due to non-registration of the sale deeds within the time allowed and the farmers and labourers who paid the stamp duty were made to suffer the loss in this regard and that invited the attention of political parties. The Labour Minister and the Chief Minister convened several meetings to settle the disputes and finally it was decided to give exemption from payment of stamp duty in favour of labourers. The allegation that the estate was fragmented to defeat the KLR Act is not correct as the provisions of the Act do not indicate that there cannot be fragmentation. The TLB has found that there is no change in classification of the land and dropped the proceedings under Section 87 of the Act initiated against the Company. 479 sale deeds executed in the name of farmers and 417 executed in favour of labourers were registered. 32 sale deeds executed in favour of the legal heirs of workmen, who died during the period of litigation have also been registered and 47 documents are remaining to be executed as far as labourers concerned. In the case of legal heirs of deceased workmen, 7 more documents are to be registered. None of these farmers and labourers are having land beyond ceiling limit. So also exemption from stamp duty was granted as per the decision of the Council of Ministers after due application of mind and in public interest. 7. Respondent No. 16 a registered Trade Union and Respondent No. 17, the Secretary of Jilla State Mazdoor Union though filed separate counter statements raised similar contentions and submitted that due to the intervention Chief Minister and the other Ministers concerned Ext.P17 to give exemption from payment of stamp duty in favour of 533 labourers and to register 600 acres of land in the estate as compensation for retrenchment, loss of livelihood and employment due to the closure of the company was made and it was not an illegal order. 8. The respondents 20 to 38 contended that after disposal of the company appeal, O.S. No. 153/2011 was filed by Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty against the company for specific performance before the Sub Court, Koyilandy. 8. The respondents 20 to 38 contended that after disposal of the company appeal, O.S. No. 153/2011 was filed by Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty against the company for specific performance before the Sub Court, Koyilandy. Later compromise agreement was executed between the parties on 7.2.2014 and the suit was decreed as per judgment and decree dated 26.3.2014 (Exts.R17(d) and (e)) and pursuant to the settlement, documents were executed by the company in favour of several persons including the respondents. 9. The additional respondents 47 and 48 contended that they are bona fide purchasers of certain extent of the property as per Ext.R47(a) and (b). More than 450 sale deeds were executed in favour of agriculturists and more than 450 sale deeds in favour of workers of the estate. The intervention of the Chief Minister, Labour Minister and other Ministers was as part of settlement to exempt stamp duty and it was done in a transparent manner. W.P. (C) No. 8950/2015 10. This writ petition was filed by one Ravindran alleging that he is a member of Kulikkileri Tharavad. The members of the Tharavad were the jenmies of vast extent of land. Kuroliparambath Thekkadath Madhavan Nair and K.I.Krishnankutty Nair were brothers and senior most members of the Tharavad. In the year 1954 as per document No. 809/1954 they executed Ext.P1 lease deed in favour of Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. (the Company) for the land in Re-survey Nos.1 and 3 of Unnikulam amsom and village, Koyilandy Taluk. The company was registered for planting and cultivating rubber tree, tea, coffee, pepper etc. The company obtained an assignment deed of jenm right of the extent of land covered by Survey Nos. R.S. 3, 116/2, 117 and 118/1A and re-survey No. 116/2 and 118/1A, as per document No. 2090/72 from the members of the Tharavad. Though 874.33 acres had been given on lease for 36 years before expiry of the period in the year 1972, Ext.P2 document had been executed for 502.15 acres. Steps for recovery of the land are being taken by the petitioner and his Tharavad in due course. The petitioner and their family members are the owners of the properties of 372.18 acres and they have not transferred that property to any person or to any Company. Steps for recovery of the land are being taken by the petitioner and his Tharavad in due course. The petitioner and their family members are the owners of the properties of 372.18 acres and they have not transferred that property to any person or to any Company. In the month of November 2013, one Chandrasekharan a member of the Tharavad approached the Village Officer, Unnikulam to get the certified copy of the Adangal Register. But it was informed that the said document had been damaged and destroyed. Thereafter an application was filed before the Tahsildar, Koyilandy. Vesting of land is not applicable under the Act to the land given on lease to the Company by the Tharavad. The Company has a fully developed rubber plantation. The plantation is exempted under Section 81 of the Act. It is learnt in the month of November and December 2013 that the parcels of land from 372.18 acres had been illegally transferred by the Company with the help of Sub Registrar of Thamarassery to P.K. Anvar. P.K. Anvar had executed two documents in favour of one P.D. Abraham for 25.9490 hectares as per document No. 4968/2013 and 10.11736 hectares of land to one P.D. Abraham as per document No. 5011/2013. The transactions were effected in connivance with one K.P. Ussain. In the Ceilng Case No. TLB 5/10 before the TLB, the 5th respondent/ Company stated that the land was not sold to Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty as he deviated from the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). But it appears that P.K.C. Ahemmedkutty had permitted strangers to trespass into the property and to cut and remove rubber trees from the estate. Cases are pending before different courts regarding the same. The transfers were effected illegally and fraudulent documents were created. The petitioner had filed complaints before the Director of Vigilance DGP, Trivandrum, but no enquiry has been conducted by the Department. Hence, this original petition is filed with the following reliefs: (a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd respondents to conduct and complete the investigation in Ext.P9 complaint filed by the petitioner urgently, taking into account all the relevant facts and the materials to be collected, urgently with in a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other WP (C) Nos. (b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other WP (C) Nos. 28496/2016, 8950/15 6815/16 and 22195/2017 45 appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to file the final report in Ext.P9 complaint urgently within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (c) To issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as prayed for or deemed just and proper. W.P. (C) No. 6815/2006 11. This writ petition is filed by one Regu Nandanan Nair seeking direction to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/respondent No. 4 to conduct investigation of Ext.P16 complaint, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468 and Section 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. This petitioner, a member of Kulikkileri Tharavad also alleged that there was illegal transfer of 372.18 acres by the Cochin Malabar Estate and Industries Ltd., the Company to P.K. Anwar and others by the Director C.P. Sharma. So also the transfer of properties by Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 to P.D. Abraham by P.K. Anwar are illegal and if investigation is conducted by the director of vigilance it will not be fair and proper. So by filing this petition the following reliefs are sought for: (a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to conduct and complete the investigation in Ext.P16 complaint filed by the petitioner urgently, taking into account all the relevant facts and the materials to be collected, urgently within a time fixed by this Hon'ble court. (b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to file the final report in Ext.P16 Complaint urgently within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (c) To issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as prayed for or deemed just and proper. W.P. (C) No. 22195/2017 12. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8950/2015 aggrieved by exemption of stamp duty for registration of sale deeds for the sale of the estate owned by the petitioner and his Tharavad causing a loss of more than Rs. 3 Crores to the State of Kerala and for the inaction of the State Government in not stopping the fragmentation of 378.18 acres of land for non-plantation purposes. 3 Crores to the State of Kerala and for the inaction of the State Government in not stopping the fragmentation of 378.18 acres of land for non-plantation purposes. The allegations in this writ petition are in similar lines to the above referred Writ Petitions and sought for to quash Ext.P23 (Ext.P18 of W.P. (C) No. 28496 of 2016) G.O. (P) No. 208/2015/TD dated 27.11.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent. Hence the writ petition is filed with the following reliefs: (a) To issue a writ of certiorari, other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P23. (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 6th, 7th and 8th respondents to stop fragmentation and sale of Kinalur Estate by 12th, 13th and 14th respondents finding that it is illegal and to defeat the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964). (c) stay all further proceedings in pursuant to and in implementation of Ext.P23 and to issue a direction to respondents 9, 10 and 11 not to register any sale deed (Transfer Deeds) in respect of 372.18 acres of the Kinalur Estate comprised in R.S. No. 1 of Unnikulam village, Koyilandy Taluk, Kozhikode Dist., pending disposal of the above writ petition. (d) to pass such orders and directions which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the circumstances of the case. (e) to award costs to the petitioners from the respondents. 13. The company (Respondent No. 12) has filed counter affidavit only in W.P. (C) No. 22195/2017, inter-alia, contending that there is no law which prohibits fragmentation and sale of any property in the State of Kerala. The land developed as Kinalur estate was taken on lease initially in 1990s. As per Document No. 130/1909 an extent of 1020.90 acres of land was taken from Kizhakkedath Kovilakam, 1650 acres in Kinalur village was taken on lease as per Document No. 3550/1912, an extent of 874.33 acres was taken on lease from Kulikkileri Puthiyaveettil Tharavad as per document No. 153/1919 and the lease was renewed as per Ext.P1. Re-survey was effected and the properties are in Re-survey Nos. 1, 3, 116/2, 117 and 118/A. By an inadvertent omission resurvey No. 1 was omitted in Ext.P2 document. If the petitioner has any claim, he has to establish it in the civil court. Re-survey was effected and the properties are in Re-survey Nos. 1, 3, 116/2, 117 and 118/A. By an inadvertent omission resurvey No. 1 was omitted in Ext.P2 document. If the petitioner has any claim, he has to establish it in the civil court. The estate was the subject matter of various litigation. The company decided to sell the estate in order to free itself from the mounting debts, to Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty for Rs. 31 crores and agreement was executed with Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty. But when there was change in management, new management thought that the transaction was not beneficial and after the death of Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty, his legal heirs and purchasers under him agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 24 crores and the Ministers including the Chief Minister intervened to settle the dispute as large number of agriculturists and labourers were involved and thereafter the Government took initiative for settlement and thus exemption from stamp duty was granted in favour of the labourers. Sale deeds were executed in favour of farmers and labourers and there is no legal bar for registration. 14. We have heard Smt. Daisy A. Philipose and Sri. Philip Antony Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Haridas P. Nair, learned Central Government Counsel, Sri Ranjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri K.V. Sohan, learned State Attorney, Sri. A.J. Varghese Senior Government Pleader, Sri P.K. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior counsel, Sri. P.B Krishnan, Sri Millu Dandapani, Sri Rakesh Roshan, Smt. T.P. Sindhumol, Sri. Shaji Thomas, Dr. George Abraham, Sri D. Kishore and Sri. Sudhi Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the respondents. 15. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 28496/2016, treating it as the main petition. The issue involved in all these writ petitions pertain to the fragmentation of the Kinalur estate, a rubber plantation for non plantation purpose, having an extent of 2438 acres. Ext.P18 Government Notification dated 27.11.2015 to exempt stamp duty on the instruments of conveyance handed over to the employees as service benefits by the company is also under challenge. The 10th respondent company is the owner of the rubber plantation known as Kinalur estate. The disputed land is an estate coming within the meaning of Article 31 A of the Constitution of India. Article 31A of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “31A. The 10th respondent company is the owner of the rubber plantation known as Kinalur estate. The disputed land is an estate coming within the meaning of Article 31 A of the Constitution of India. Article 31A of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “31A. Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for: (a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights. (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx (e) xx xx xx (2) In this article - (a) the expression “estate” shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include:- (i) any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the estates of (Tamil Nadu) and Kerala, any janmam right. (ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement. (iii) any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillay thereto, including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans.” 16. Before we proceed further, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and its objects. KLR Act was promulgated to enact a comprehensive legislation relating to land reforms in the State of Kerala. KLR Act was introduced replacing 'The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960. Constitutionality of Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, was challenged before the Apex Court in Kunhikoman and Others vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 723 wherein it was observed that: ''7. It is also from the provisions contained in Chapters II & III of the Act that the main purpose of the Act is to do away with intermediaries and to fix a ceiling and give the excess land, if any, to the landless or those who hold land much below the ceiling. The method employed to carry out this object is first to acquire the land for the State and thereafter to assign it to the cultivating tenants or to the landless or to those with small amounts of land. The method employed to carry out this object is first to acquire the land for the State and thereafter to assign it to the cultivating tenants or to the landless or to those with small amounts of land. The main provisions of the Act therefore are clearly within the Legislative competence of the State legislature under item 18 of List II and item 42 of List III and this is not being disputed on behalf of the petitioners..........'' 17. But the Act was held violative of Article 14 on account of the manner in which the ceiling area was fixed and the Act was struck down in relation to ryotwari lands which had come to the State of Kerala from the State of Madras. Thereupon, the Land Reforms Act was introduced in the year 1963 by Act 1 of 1964 replacing the existing Act and it was amended in the year 1969 by Act 35 of 1969. Act 1 of 1964 was included in ninth schedule of the Constitution. When 1964 Act was amended by Act 35 of 1969, the Act was challenged by filing numerous writ petitions before this Court. All those writ petitions were decided together and disposed of by a Full Bench of this Court in Narayanan Nair vs. State, AIR 1971 Ker. 98 (FB). Relevant portion of paragraph No. 41 reads as follows: “The abolition of landlordisms and the creation of a class of peasant-proprietors making the actual cultivator the owner of the land, in other words, the implementation of the slogan, “Land for the tiller”, has always been regarded as a measure of agrarian reform. So has the fixing of a ceiling on the holding of agricultural lands (based on the concept of an economic holding) and the distribution of land held in excess of the ceiling to the landless or to persons holding land below the ceiling..............” 18. In Malankara Rubber And Produce Co. and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1972 SC 2027 : 1972 KHC 101, the amendment effected with the object of preventing the State from acquiring lands in the possession of the petitioners therein in excess of the ceiling imposed was challenged. It was made clear that Section 86 provides vesting of excess land in Government which are to be surrendered under Section 85. It was made clear that Section 86 provides vesting of excess land in Government which are to be surrendered under Section 85. It empowers the Land Board to call upon persons effected by the ceiling provisions to surrender the excess lands and in default of compliance to take possession thereof in the manner prescribed. It was also held that the provisions of the KLR Act making discrimination against pepper and areca plantations are bad only if the lands are not estate and that the lands interspersed between sites of commercial undertakings and house sites in municipalities with lands surrounding them cannot be acquired as the same are not agricultural lands. Except as above the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are beyond challenge. 19. In State of Kerala and Others vs. K.A. Gangadharan, AIR 1977 SC 311 , the Apex Court observed that the provisions (Sections 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 & 87) in the KLR Act establish the dominant legislative intent of the imposition of the ceiling on land holdings and the consequential obligation to surrender lands owned or held in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date, namely, 1st January 1970. It was further observed that it is apparent that S.84 was enacted with a view to make the provisions of Sections 83 and 85 effective. In Paragraph No. 15, it is held as follows: ''15.…......The obligation to surrender the excess land owned or possessed by a person as on 1st January 1970 cannot be affected by voluntary transfers even of the excepted varieties mentioned in S.84 of the Act subsequent to the notified date. The transferor will continue to be liable to surrender to the Government the full extent of the excess land that was in his possession as on 1st January 1970.” 20. Thus, it is clear that the object of the KLR Act is to distribute excess land among landless people by taking it from landlords/persons holding beyond the ceiling limits It is also to help cultivation process in a most economic manner as well to promote agricultural growth. Needless to say that land reforms imparted drastic changes to economic and social outlook of the country. 21. Section 2 of the KLR Act deals with the definitions. Section 2(44) of the Act reads as follows: “S.2. Needless to say that land reforms imparted drastic changes to economic and social outlook of the country. 21. Section 2 of the KLR Act deals with the definitions. Section 2(44) of the Act reads as follows: “S.2. (44) "plantation" means any land used by a person principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon (hereinafter in this clause referred to as plantation crops) and includes:- (a) land used by the said person for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops or for the preparation of the same for the market. (b) xxxx (c) agricultural lands interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated by the said person with plantation crops, not exceeding such extent as may be determined by the Land Board [or the Taluk land Board, as the case may be] as necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation. Explanation - Lands used for the construction of office buildings, godowns, factories quarters for workmen, hospitals, schools and play grounds shall be deemed to be lands used for the purposes of sub-clause (a). Section 2 (3) defines ceiling area as follows: “Ceiling area” means the extent of land specified in section 82 as the ceiling area.” 22. Chapter III of KLR Act deals with restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands. Section 81 included in chapter III deals with exemptions which reads as follows: “S.81. Exemptions - (1) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to:- (a) lands owned or held by the Government of Kerala or the Government of any other State in India or the Government of India or a local authority (or the Cochin Port Trust) or any other authority which the Government may, in public interest, exempt, by notification in the Gazette, from the provisions of this Chapter. Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease whether current or time expired or otherwise. Provided that the exemption under this clause shall not apply to lands owned by the Government of Kerala and held by any person under lease whether current or time expired or otherwise. (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx (e) plantations (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or other documents or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or Taluk Land Board or Land Board or other authority, a person holding plantation and lands ancillary thereto or interspersed within such plantation, may use not exceeding five per cent of the extent of such holding for floriculture or for the cultivation of Vanila or medicinal plants or other agricultural crop or for establishing hotels or resorts or other tourism projects and for purposes ancillary or connected therewith. S.82. Ceiling area - (1) The ceiling area of land shall be:- (a) In the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a sole surviving member, five standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than six and more than seven and a half acres in extent. (b) in the case of a family consisting of two or more but not more than five members, ten standard acres so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent. (c) in the case of a family consisting of more than five members, ten standard acres increased by one standard acres for each member in excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than twenty acres in extent. (d) in the case of any other person, other than a joint family, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent. xx xx xx xx xx xx (6) In computing the ceiling area, lands exempted under Section 81 shall be excluded. 23. Certain undisputed facts need to be narrated here for the proper understanding of the issue involved. xx xx xx xx xx xx (6) In computing the ceiling area, lands exempted under Section 81 shall be excluded. 23. Certain undisputed facts need to be narrated here for the proper understanding of the issue involved. The company had serious financial problems and in order to overcome the same, the company decided to sell 450 acres of land which constitute the Thamarassery Division in the year 2001 and as per Ext.P1 appointed the 12th respondent for a period of one year as a labour consultant to advise the company in the matters regarding settlement of dues of its employees. Later on 7.9.2002 the company decided to sell the whole estate. The 12threspondent was also having business partnership with one Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty and he offered the highest bid amount of 31.10 crores. By Ext.P2 a settlement arrangement was made on 28.2.2003 by the company and the labour unions with intimation to the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner as evident by Ext.P3. Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty is referred as the purchaser who is entrusted to negotiate and finalize the terms and conditions of retrenchment benefits due to all the workers. Thereafter, the company has filed Co. Case No. 75 of 2003 seeking permission to conclude the sale of the properties in terms of the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 7.9.2002. That case was disposed of along with some other petitions as per Ext.P4 order dated 7.11.2003. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as follows: ''......Accordingly unless and until the entire remaining balance of sale consideration for the Kinalur Estate is paid by the purchaser to the credit of the company's bank account towards discharge of its liabilities with banks and financial institutions, the company shall neither convey title to the Kinalur estate nor part with possession either in part or in whole in favour of the purchaser. The company and its Board of Directors shall be jointly and severally responsible for due fulfillment of this stipulation and file an affidavit of compliance within 30 days of completion of the whole dealings as stipulated.'' 24. Thereafter, in O.A. No. 167/2000 filed by the Federal Bank Ltd. against the company before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the company filed I.A No. 1464/2003 seeking permission to conduct the sale of the estate in terms of the resolution of the Board of Directions dated 7.9.2002. Thereafter, in O.A. No. 167/2000 filed by the Federal Bank Ltd. against the company before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the company filed I.A No. 1464/2003 seeking permission to conduct the sale of the estate in terms of the resolution of the Board of Directions dated 7.9.2002. But the I.A. was dismissed as the bidder of the estate has not deposited the bid amount as evident by Ext.P5. Thereafter, two shareholders of the company filed O.S. No. 131/2005 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode, and a receiver was appointed to take possession of the estate as per Ext.P6. But O.S. No. 131/2005 was withdrawn by this Court and numbered as Co. Case No. 7/2006 in Company Petition No. 49/2004. By Ext.P7 order this Court has directed that all the persons found to be in possession are to be dispossessed unless he is able to show that he is under the occupation of the receiver. Later the Company Case No. 7/2006 was dismissed by Ext.R11(b) observing that when the recovery certificate issued is discharged, all interlocutory orders in the form of interdiction against the defendants therein (company) or their properties will get discharged and released. Thus the receiver was released and the appointment of the District Collector as custodian during the course of the suit was also vacated. The appeal against the said judgment was disposed of by Ext.R11(a) on the finding that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 25. The records reveal that the 1st agreement between the company and Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty for sale of the estate for a total consideration of 31.10 crores was on 27.7.2003 and the labour dispute was settled on certain terms and conditions such as payment of gratuity, 25 days' salary for every year for the remaining service up to the completion of the age of 58 years etc. It is also seen that Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty further agreed to give 3 cents of land in the labour line and 100 cents elsewhere, and thus counting to 1.03 acres of land to the workers and they have to bear the stamp duty, the registration fee and the documentation charges to register the land in terms of the settlement. According to the petitioner, Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty failed to pay the amount agreed and hence the company terminated the agreement. According to the petitioner, Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty failed to pay the amount agreed and hence the company terminated the agreement. But he entered into several agreements for the sale of the estate and thus 219 sale deeds were registered before the District of Kozhikode and 293 sale deeds by the 9th respondent, 143 by the 8th respondent in violation of the order of the District Collector, the 7th respondent. But it is pertinent to note all those persons are not before this court. 26. It is also discernible from the records that on 25.1.2012 the Additional Labour Commissioner addressed the Labour Department to get permission of the Government for fragmentation of the estate and to withdraw the cases initiated by the Land Board, by Ext.P9. Thereafter, a meeting was convened under the leadership of then Chief Minister, Minister of Electricity, Industries, Labour and Local Members of Legislative Assembly etc and after deliberations, decided to permit fragmentation of the estate and to register the sale deed in favour of workers and, agriculturists who have been in possession of the estate on assurance that they will not use the estate property for any other purpose than agriculture and also to take steps to waive registration tax, etc. 27. But it is significant to note that in the year 2010 the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy initiated suo motu proceedings against the 10th respondent directing the company to surrender 335.01 acres of land. It is revealed from Ext.P11 proceedings of the TLB, that the company contended that the Memorandum of understanding (MOU) entered into with Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty had been cancelled as he did not comply with the terms and that the company did not execute any sale deed in favour of any other person. The further contention was that the company had no intention to convert the land for any other purpose. Thereafter, TLB by Ext.P11 order dated 20.6.2013 dropped the proceedings on the finding that the company has not acquired any excess land by virtue of the provisions in Section 87 of the KLR Act, which prima facie, appears to be incorrect. The further contention was that the company had no intention to convert the land for any other purpose. Thereafter, TLB by Ext.P11 order dated 20.6.2013 dropped the proceedings on the finding that the company has not acquired any excess land by virtue of the provisions in Section 87 of the KLR Act, which prima facie, appears to be incorrect. Section 83 of KLR reads as follows: “S.83 No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area - With effect from such date as may be notified by the Government in the Gazette, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area.” Section 84 deals with transfers effected to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act. “S. 84 Certain voluntary transfers to be null and void:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all voluntary transfers effected after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 in the Gazette, otherwise than: (i) By way of partition (ii) xxxxx (iii) in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before the 27th July, 1960, and continued to be so till the date of transfer. (iv) xxx xxxx by a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area (or otherwise than by way of gift in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his pre-deceased son or daughter by any person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area) shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of this Act and shall be invalid. xx xx xx xx xx xx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all voluntary transfers effected by any person (other than a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person) owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area after the 1st July, 1969, otherwise than:- (i) By way of partition (ii) in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before the 27th July, 1960, and continued to be so till the date of transfer; (I) (iii) (xxxx) shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provision of this Act and shall be invalid.” (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1), (1A) or (2), or in any judgment, decree, or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority, no acquisition of land referred to in Section 7E shall be deemed to be invalid, or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that the land so acquired was found included as, or forming part of, the land liable to be surrendered by the transferor as excess land under the provisions of this Act and no suit or other proceedings including proceedings for eviction relating to the said land shall be instituted, maintained or continued in any court or Tribunal against any person who is a deemed tenant under Section 7E and every such suit or proceedings pending shall stand abated. Provided that xxx xxx xxx xxx Provided further that if the Taluk Land Board is satisfied that the transfer of land made by a person in possession of excess land is calculated to defeat the ceiling provisions, it may take into account the land so transferred in determining his ceiling area, and may direct him to surrender such extent of land held or possessed by him. ” Provided also that xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 87 of the Act deals with the surrender of excess land obtained by gift, purchase, lease etc after the notified date i.e. 1.1.1970: “S.87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc. ” Provided also that xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 87 of the Act deals with the surrender of excess land obtained by gift, purchase, lease etc after the notified date i.e. 1.1.1970: “S.87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc. to be surrendered - (1) Where any person acquires any land dafter the date notified under Section 83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed. Explanation 1 - Where any land is exempted by or under Section 81 and such exemption is in force on the date notified under Section 83, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under Section 83. Explanation II - Where, after the date notified under Section 83, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or any land exempt under Section 81 from the provisions of this Chapter is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area, shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date. (1A) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) shall file a statement containing the particulars specified in sub-section (1) of Section 85A within a period of three months of the date of the acquisition. (2) The provisions of Sections 85 and 86 shall, so far as may be, apply to the vesting in the Government of the ownership or possession or both of the lands required to be surrendered under sub-section (1).” 28. (2) The provisions of Sections 85 and 86 shall, so far as may be, apply to the vesting in the Government of the ownership or possession or both of the lands required to be surrendered under sub-section (1).” 28. It is pertinent to note that by Act 27 of 1979 Explanation II, to Section 87 was added mainly after the observation of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Raghavan vs. State of Kerala and Others, 1977 KLT 57 that the Explanation I to Section 87 would not be attracted to a case where categories of land which are exempted on 1.1.70 are converted into non-exempted categories subsequent to that date. Therefore, no excess land could be taken from a person holding excess land owing to conversion of exempted lands into non exempted lands after 1.1.1970. 29. So to overcome the difficultly and to prevent accumulation of land in the hands of a few and also to enable the Government to take such excess land Section 87 was amended by adding Explanation II to Section 87 by Act 27 of 1979. It indicates that an exempted land by any kind conversion or change of nature of land exceeds the ceiling limit, shall be treated and dealt with, as subsequent acquisition after the notified date and such land shall be surrendered to achieve the object and spirit of the Act. The crucial word in Explanation II to Section 87 is therefore conversion. 30. In Chacko Varghese vs. Taluk Land Board, 1982 KLT 72 , a learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with Explanation II to Sec.87 held as follows: “7. A reading of the above provisions shows that where a land has been converted from one category into another category after 1.1.1970 as laid down in Explanation II, and thereby the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, the land in excess of the ceiling area has to be treated as land acquired after 1.1.1970. Such land has to be surrendered under S.87 of the Act in the same way excess land as on 1.1.1970 has to be surrendered under S.85 of the Act. 8. Such land has to be surrendered under S.87 of the Act in the same way excess land as on 1.1.1970 has to be surrendered under S.85 of the Act. 8. Explanation II to S.87 of the Act contemplates two types of conversion; one is conversion of a class of land specified in Schedule II into another class of land specified in that schedule and the second is conversion of any land exempt under S.81 from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act into any class of land not so exempt. In the present case we are concerned with the second type of conversion. 9. What is meant by conversion or converting a land from one class to another? When is one class of land said to be converted into another class of land? According to the Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary, “convert” means to change or turn from one thing, condition to another; to alter one thing into another; to apply to a particular purpose. Conversion would normally be a conscious and voluntary act. A coconut garden can be converted into paddy field or vice versa or into arecanut or rubber plantation etc. These conversions would be the result of a definite intention on the part of the converter to do so. A person entertains an intention to convert and does an act in furtherance of the intention which results in the alteration of one state of thing into another. Just as the action is important, the intention also is important. That is what has been stressed by this Court in the unreported decisions referred to above. There may also be cases where by utter neglect a plantation is allowed to deteriorate as a result of which it ceases to be a plantation.” 31. A Division Bench of this Court in Kurian vs. Taluk Land, 1991 (1) KLT 162 observed in para.8 as follows: “8...........The Legislative fiction incorporated in explanations 1 and 2 of S.87 widen the scope of S.87 and thereby even when there is no subsequent acquisition by gift, purchase, mortgage, lease, surrender, transfer, bequest or inheritance or otherwise, but on account of land lawfully exempted ceasing to be exempted, or on account of subsequent change in the nature of land, the holding exceeds the ceiling area, it shall be deemed to be on par with subsequent acquisitions to be dealt within the same manner. The above provision discloses a two-pronged approach towards ceiling area. One is that as on the notified date namely, 1.1.1970 no person shall own or hold land in excess of the ceiling area and the excess land, if any, shall be taken over by the State. The other is that even after the notified date where persons acquire land as contemplated in S.87 or where land originally exempted ceases to be exempted or where classification or nature of the land has been altered subsequently and in consequence thereof the extent of the holding exceeds the ceiling area, that also shall be treated as excess and surrender obtained. It is significant to note that there is no provision in Chapter III indicating legislative intention to the effect that merely on account of change in the composition or strength of a family and without any acquisition or cessation of exemption or change in classification of land, ceiling area can be determined afresh with reference to the date on which the change in composition or strength of the family took place. Therefore, it is clear that the ceiling area prescribed in S.82 in respect of a family cannot increase or decrease subsequently merely on account of increase or decrease in the number of members of the family either by birth or by death or by minor members attaining majority. Ceiling area so far as a family is concerned is to be determined as on the notified dated namely 1.1.1970 and it cannot undergo any fluctuation merely on account of change in the number of members of the family. To hold otherwise would detract the plain tenor of the provisions and amount to making an addition to the provisions of the Act." 32. Whether the order of the TLB dropping the suo motu proceedings initiated is justified or not is to be answered on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case in the wake of the principles enunciated in the judgments referred above. 33. Coming back to the facts of the case it is pertinent to note that the chairman of the Taluk Land Board had addressed the Sub Registrar, Balusssery by Ext.P12 that prohibition relating to the transfer of land has not been lifted and it is valid until the proceedings are approved by the State Land Board. 33. Coming back to the facts of the case it is pertinent to note that the chairman of the Taluk Land Board had addressed the Sub Registrar, Balusssery by Ext.P12 that prohibition relating to the transfer of land has not been lifted and it is valid until the proceedings are approved by the State Land Board. The 7th respondent also issued Ext.P13 letter to the 8th respondent stating that the restriction to transfer property and register sale deed has not been lifted till the approval by State Land Board. While so, Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty died and his legal heir, the 10th respondent with the 12th respondent executed another settlement agreement regarding the sale of the estate for a total sale consideration of Rs. 55,54,97,251/-. Pursuant to the agreement the company authorised one Sharma to execute the conveyance deeds to the legal heirs or nominees of Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty. Ext.P14 pertains to the said agreement. Thereafter, the Samyuktha Trade Union Action Committee, a union of workers approached the Chief Minister for granting exemption to 540 workers from paying the stamp duty for the lands to be registered in their names. 34. Section 81 of the KLR Act is in pith and substance a special provision, with its main objective of giving exemption to certain lands including the lands maintained as plantations is to prevent fragmentation of the land and to keep it as plantation itself to improve the economy of the state for welfare of people as a whole while the Act creates a regime, the State is under an obligation to safeguard, the intended purpose of the provisions of the Act in its spirit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the character of the plantation had been lost as the land was subjected to fragmentation and bifurcation of the same. Though the company contended that the nature of the land was not changed or converted, it could be gathered from the records that the proposal to transfer 1.03 acres of land to each workers in discharge of their service or retrenchment benefits will definitely divide the plantation into separate slots and that would definitely change the character/nature of the plantation, which could be termed as conversion and that will be against the provisions of the Act. In fact, most of the respondents contended that the estate was fragmented and allotted to 456 workers and also to the legal heirs of the workers of the estate. So fragmentation of estate was effected and different persons are holding possession of it either with title deed or without title deeds. 35. Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 18 points out that there is no provision restricting fragmentation of lands exempted under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and there is nothing illegal in the transfer of the estate effected by the company. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2009 (3) KLJ 110 wherein it was held as: “19. There is no restriction on alienation of lands exempted under Section 81 (1)(a) of the Land Reforms Act ,since such lands are exempted from the operation of Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act dealing with ceiling on holding. It is not the excess land that is alienated but the exempted land.........” It was further held in para 21 that: ''…...Any exemption from ceiling provision under the Kerala Land Reforms Act has a purpose and the purpose in the present case is public interest and that public interest is the use of land for industrial purpose. Since under the Kerala Land Reforms Act there is no restriction on alienation of the exempted category of lands and since the transferee is subjected to the acid test of eligibility and entitlement for exemption in terms of use of the land, the transfer made by the HMT will also be subjected to the same test, namely use of the transferred land for industrial purpose. In other words, HMT is legally entitled to transfer 100 acres of land notified under Ext.R1(i) notification, but the transferee will have to use that land for industrial purpose and that purpose only. Therefore, the transfer is not vitiated in any way; but the transferee will have to use the land only for industrial purpose. That is a covenant on the land.'' 36. According to him within a period of three years commencing from 2013, 513 documents were executed in favour of agriculturists and 500 documents in favour of the workers of the estate. That is a covenant on the land.'' 36. According to him within a period of three years commencing from 2013, 513 documents were executed in favour of agriculturists and 500 documents in favour of the workers of the estate. Now they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and the unsuccessful attempt of the petitioner is to thwart the registration of sale deeds in favour of the persons in possession. 37. We may point out at this stage that the company did not file objection in the main Writ Petition. But in W.P. (C) No. 22195/2017 counter affidavit was filed contending that after the intervention of the Government to settle the dispute the company on receipt of additional sum of 24 Crores from the legal heir of Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty and the purchasers under him together executed sale deeds in favour of labourers and farmers but there is no change to the character of those properties and it remain as rubber plantations. Doubtless, the said contention is thoroughly against the stand taken by the company before the TLB as evident by Ext.P13 in W.P. (C) No. 22195/2017 and Ext.P11 of the main Writ Petition. The statement of the company that there might be trespass or illegal cutting and removal of trees by trespassers with the connivance of Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty, may give rise to more litigation, but will not justify the double stand adopted by the company. Piercing into the provisions of KLR Act in fact it could be seen that the words 'Fragmentation' as well 'Conversion' are not defined in the Act. Concise Law Dictionary says that Fragmentation is 'the action or process of breaking into fragments. 'Conversion' is the transformation of one species of property into another. In Chacko's case (supra) it was held that Conversion would normally be a conscious and voluntary act. The legislative intention is clear that the provision to exempt plantation from ceiling limits, is to promote agricultural growth as well to help cultivation process in a most economic manner for the welfare of the society as a whole. With that view, a combined reading of Section 81 (4) and Explanation I and II of Section 87 of the Act, put the things beyond any pale of doubt. Fragmentation of the estate and transfer of it has to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some other category of land. With that view, a combined reading of Section 81 (4) and Explanation I and II of Section 87 of the Act, put the things beyond any pale of doubt. Fragmentation of the estate and transfer of it has to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some other category of land. Such being the scenario, fragmentation amounts to serious violation of the provisions of KLR Act. Hence, we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 18 that the fragmented plots will be maintained as plantation by the transferees, so as to extend/avail the benefit of HMT's case (supra). Taking into account of all the relevant aspects, we have no hesitation in holding that dropping of the suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 87 of KLR Act by the TLB in a cursory manner, is not at all reasonable or justifiable when tested on the touchstone of the object and intention, which the legislation seeks to achieve and beyond what is required, in the interest of the public. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Taluk Land Board has not at all considered or analyzed the situation properly in correct perspective to achieve the intended purpose, aim and object of provisions of KLR Act. In a situation like this, the argument of the respondents fail. 38. We are also called upon to scrutinize the legality and validity of ExtP18. Attack of the petitioner to Ext.P18, one way or other, is alleging corruption. But it is defended or resisted by raising the relevant aspect of public policy for welfare/good of the public rather the hapless labourers who had to suffer due to the lock out of the company. Prima facie, it appears that their clamour invited the attention of political leaders and intervention of the Government. The representations submitted by the union of the workers (whether registered or unregistered union) seeking exemption of stamp duty for registration of title deeds were forwarded to the Chief Minister with the report of additional Secretary to Government, Taxes Department that a loss of Rs. 2,39,56,220/- will be caused to revenue if exemption to stamp duty is granted. But, the Council of Ministers on 5.3.2014 decided to grant exemption from the stamp duty in registering the sale deeds in respect of the workers, though the Law Department and Finance Department objected the transfer. 2,39,56,220/- will be caused to revenue if exemption to stamp duty is granted. But, the Council of Ministers on 5.3.2014 decided to grant exemption from the stamp duty in registering the sale deeds in respect of the workers, though the Law Department and Finance Department objected the transfer. On 27.11.2015 Ext P18 G.O. was issued granting exemption to stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act. Ext.P18 G.O dated 27.11.2015 reads as follows: “S.R.O. No. 805/2015 - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959), the Government of Kerala, being of the opinion that, it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby remit the stamp duty chargeable under the said Act on the instruments of conveyance of an extent of 23025.498 Ares of land as specified in the Schedule 1 and II below, in Kozhikode District, to be executed in favour of 464 employees of Kinalur Rubber Estate mentioned in Schedule I and in favour of the legal heirs of 39 deceased employees of the said estate mentioned in Schedule II, handed over to the employees by M/s. Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries towards their service benefit.” A schedule attached along with the G.O. includes the list of 464 employees and the legal heirs of 39 deceased employees as schedule No. 2. Explanatory Note attached to P18 reads as follows: “Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the order, but is intended to indicate its general report) “The Chairman and the Convenor, Kinaloor Estate Joint Trade Union Act Committee have requested Government to remit the stamp duty chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959) for the instruments of conveyance of an extent of 23025.498 Ares of land as specified in the Schedules shown in the order, in Kozhikode District, to be executed in favour of 464 employees of Kinalur Rubber Estate mentioned in Schedule I and in favour of legal heirs of 39 deceased employees of the said estate mentioned in Schedule II, handed over to the employees by M/s. Cochin-Malabar Estates and Industries towards service benefit. Government have decided to remit the duty chargeable for the said purpose, on public interest. The order is intended to achieve the above object.” 39. Government have decided to remit the duty chargeable for the said purpose, on public interest. The order is intended to achieve the above object.” 39. It is discernible by Ext.P16 that the Land Board Secretary, Land Revenue Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration had taken a decision that the Government can transfer the property in the name of the employees only after acquisition of the same and plantation which are exempted cannot be fragmented as per the provisions of the KLR Act, and that if the land is assigned as per special permission of the Government, then the question of granting exemption from remitting the stamp duty does not arise. Therefore the matter has to be placed before departments of Revenue and Law with the permission of the Chief Minister for taking a decision for resuming the estate. But still, Ext.P18 Notification was issued. 40. Smt. Daisy Philipose, the learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that the issuance of the G.O by the Government under the guise that it was for public interest is definitely illegal and it was only to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act and to help the land mafia. In order to substantiate this argument, she relies on certain decisions of the Apex Court. In Common cause, A registered Society vs. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 530 it was held that any procedure laid down by the Government must be transparent, just and non-arbitrary. In Shivsagar Tiwari vs. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 558 it has been observed in paragraph No. 10 as follows: “10. It would be apposite in this context to refer to the recent decision of this Court in Common Cause, a Registered Society vs. Union of India, in which one of us (Kuldip Singh, J.) reiterated the need to act fairly and justly in the matter of grant of larges, pointing out that any arbitrary distribution of national wealth would violate the law of the land. Mention was made of the judgment in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, stating that the same approved “misfeasance in public office” as a part of the law of the tort. Mention was made of the judgment in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, stating that the same approved “misfeasance in public office” as a part of the law of the tort. It was pointed out that public servants become liable in damages for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrongdoing.” In Secretary Jaipur Development Authority vs. Daulat Maljain Others, 1997 (1) SCC 35 , the Apex Court dealt with the question of certain Government action on public policy and it was held as follows: ''13. All purposes or action for which moral responsibility can be attached are actions performed by individual persons composing the department. All Government actions, therefore, means actions performed by individual persons to further the objectives set down in the Constitution, the laws and the administrative policies to develop the democratic traditions, social and economic democracy set down in the Preamble, Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. The intention behind the Government actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest. Public good is synonymous with protection of the interest of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies. The limitations of policies are kept along with the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification. 14. The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflage for abuse of the power and trust entrusted with a public authority or public servant for the performance of the public duties. Misuse Implies doing of something improper. The essence of impropriety is the replacement of public motive or a private one. When satisfaction sought in the performance of duties is for mutual personal gain, the misuse is usually termed as corruption…......'' 41. Based on the principle laid down in the decisions referred above the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argue that the policy of the Government causing heavy loss to State Exchequer by exempting stamp duty is no doubt against the public welfare/good and it could only be to help the land mafia and the action of the Government was abuse or misuse of power and the whole procedure was not transparent. Therefore, Ext.P18 G.O. and the decision to fragment the estate are liable to be set aside. 42. According to Sri. Therefore, Ext.P18 G.O. and the decision to fragment the estate are liable to be set aside. 42. According to Sri. Renjith Thampan the learned Additional Advocate General though exemption was granted to the plantation of the company under Section 81 of the KLR Act to achieve the object of the act by promoting agriculture/cultivation the allegation, whether a real estate group is behind the transaction is to be enquired into by the appropriate authorities, if sufficient materials are placed before the authorities. It is also submitted that some of the workers have already occupied the land assigned to them and constructed residential houses. Hence the revenue department needs more time to enquire into the details regarding the occupation of the land already assigned to the workers. The revenue department objected registration of sale deeds only to protect illegal bifurcation of the plantation. The learned Additional Advocate General canvassed our attention to the following decisions to argue that the bifurcation and fragmentation of the estate was against the intention and object of the Act and the said action was illegal and not in public interest and as Ext.P18 is the outcome of the same, it is liable to be set aside. 43. In Smart Security and Secret Service Agency vs. State Bank of India, 2016 (3) KLT 1 , a learned Single Judge of this court observed in para 6 as follows: “6...............The doctrine of public policy is a concept which is illusive, varying and uncertain. A conspectus of the various judicial pronouncements on the said concept indicates that the term 'public policy' is not capable of a precise definition and whatever tends to injustice of operation, restraint of liberty, commerce and natural or legal rights; whatever tends to the obstruction of justice or to the violation of a Statute and whatever is against good morals can be said to be against public policy." 44. It is held in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others vs. State of Gujarath and Another, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 by the Apex Court that property in legal sense means an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by law. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, more particularly, ownership and exclusive right to a thing, the right to dispose of thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, more particularly, ownership and exclusive right to a thing, the right to dispose of thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. The dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects is called property. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing is property in legal parameters. 45. It is also observed that the term property has a most extensive signification, and, according to its legal definition, consists in free use, enjoyment, and disposition by a person of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land. 46. But on the other hand Sri P.K. Suresh Kumar, the senior learned Counsel relies on the view taken by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Basant Nahata, 2005 (12) SCC 77 to support Ext.P18 G.O issued by the Executive by exercising its powers. It was observed as follows. “Whenever interpretation of the concept “public policy” is required to be considered it is for the judiciary to do so and in doing so even the power of the judiciary is very limited”. 47. The main challenge to Ext P18 is that it would cause heavy loss to State Exchequer. But from the pleadings in the petition itself it is discernible that after several rounds of discussion and deliberation by the intervention of political leaders as numerous hapless workers of the estate were involved, the decision was taken by the Government to ensure their rights to get retrenchment benefits. Ext.P2 settlement agreement dated 28.02.2003 was executed as the retrenchment of the employees of the estate was without giving any benefits/compensation as provided under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act points out, Smt. T.P. Sindhu Mol, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 17. Thereafter, Ext.R17(a) dated 31/01/2015 was ordered by the Government for giving retrenchment benefits for 533 affected workers by registering properties in their favour. Pursuant to the said order Ext.P18 was issued. The words public policy connotes 'some matter which concerns the public good and the public interest'. Thereafter, Ext.R17(a) dated 31/01/2015 was ordered by the Government for giving retrenchment benefits for 533 affected workers by registering properties in their favour. Pursuant to the said order Ext.P18 was issued. The words public policy connotes 'some matter which concerns the public good and the public interest'. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances in their entirety, the consequences of grant or refusal of the relief sought for, the nature and extent of injury or difficulties that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal in the light of the principles laid down in the above referred decisions, at this stage we are unable to conclude that the Government had exercised its' discretionary power with mala-fide intention in a most arbitrary manner motivated by extraneous consideration. The intention of the Government may be to protect and promote or to ensure justice to the workers of the estate eligible to claim retrenchment benefits. The priority of the Government may be to restore the life and livelihood of the affected workers. It is also to be noted that the complaints filed by the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 22195/2017 and 8950/2015 are still pending. 48. Sri. Sudhi Vasudevan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 47 and 48 has submitted that they have purchased property as per Ext.47 (a) and 47 (b) by paying the requisite stamp duty, but the rubber plantation has not been converted into any other land. Tax have been remitted even for the period 2018-19 and the property is used as rubber plantation. 49. Dr. George Abraham, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 20 to 38, and 42 to 44 argued that they are agriculturists who purchased 5 Acres of land. 50. Adv. Benny P. Thomas the learned counsel appearing for the Company submitted that on the basis of the request submitted by the trade union exemption from the stamp duty was granted as the company could not pay retrenchment benefits to its employees. Ext.P2 settlement was made with the trade union and R11(a) and R11(b) were made on culmination of the dispute with the employees. He has also alerted us that in C.C No. 7/2006 or in Co. Appeal No. 6/2010 there was no allegation against conversion of the estate. 51. Ext.P2 settlement was made with the trade union and R11(a) and R11(b) were made on culmination of the dispute with the employees. He has also alerted us that in C.C No. 7/2006 or in Co. Appeal No. 6/2010 there was no allegation against conversion of the estate. 51. Respondent No. 39 has produced the sale deed of his property as R18(a) and contended that he is in ownership and possession of the land. So also the respondents 40 and 41 contended that they are in possession of 4.04 acres of land which do form part of the estate, but they are unable to sell that property due to the pendency of this writ petition. Permission has been sought for by some of the parties to convey their property during the pendency of this petition and after obtaining permission from this Court sale deeds were executed. 52. Sri. D. Kishore, the learned counsel for the respondents 43 and 44 contended that they have purchased property as per Exts.R43(a) and 43(b). Sri Jose Jones Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondents 47 and 48 obtained title deed for certain extent of land as per Exts.R47(a) and R47(b) from the legal heirs of P.K.C. Ahammedkuty and they have registered the document on payment of proper stamp duty. 53. After disposal of Co. Appeal No. 6 of 2010, O.S. No. 153/2011 was filed by Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty before the Sub Court, Koyilady for specific performance against the company and thereafter the matter was compromised and the compromise was entered into between the parties. Ext.R17(a) is the copy of the plaint filed by P.K.C. Ahammedkutty. Ext.R17(c) is the compromise petition entered into and R17(d) is the judgment passed for specific performance after accepting the compromise. In the compromise petition as clause 5 it has been mentioned that as sale consideration of Rs. 55.64 Crores was received by the company, the company has to execute and register assignment deeds in respect of A schedule properties in the name of the persons mentioned in B and C schedules. Thus, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. 54. Sri. 55.64 Crores was received by the company, the company has to execute and register assignment deeds in respect of A schedule properties in the name of the persons mentioned in B and C schedules. Thus, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. 54. Sri. P.B. Krishnan has also pointed out that the main petition is not maintainable as all the necessary parties are not in the party array though their number is definite and specific as 525 documents were executed in favour of the agriculturists and 500 in favour of the workers. According to the learned counsel without 1025 persons on the party array the petition itself is not maintainable Ext.P18 Notification contains the names of 464 works and the legal heirs of 39 deceased workers. Though there is a prayer to set aside Ext.P18, it is important to note that they were not made as parties in the main writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 28496/2016). Rule 148 of High Court Rules reads as follows: “148. Addition of parties - All persons directly affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the court on application made of the purpose be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the Original Petition shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct.” In Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala, 2006 (2) KLT 923 (SC) it has been held that if the parties are definite resort cannot be made to Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules and that Rule can be applied only when very large number of persons are involved and when it is not able to pinpoint those persons with details. In Ravidas vs. Public Service Commission, 2009 (2) KLT 295 a Full Bench of this Court also held that Rule 148 of the Kerala High Courts can be applied only when a large and unspecified members of candidates are involved. 55. In Ravidas vs. Public Service Commission, 2009 (2) KLT 295 a Full Bench of this Court also held that Rule 148 of the Kerala High Courts can be applied only when a large and unspecified members of candidates are involved. 55. It was also pointed out that the TLB was not entitled to take suo motu proceedings without prior intimation from the Land Board, Trivandrum and hence as far as the suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 87 (later dropped) is bad on that ground also State of Kerala vs. Idiculla, 1980 KLT 120 . 56. The whole purpose of KLR Act as the title itself indicates was to introduce land reforms in the State (known as Gods Own Country). But, we are certain in our minds that large number of people are still sleeping on the streets of this 'Gods Own Country' just for the reason that they have no place of abode. To give at least a bit of land to such landless people by taking it from landlords who possess in excess was the major aim of the KLR Act. To sum up the matter in issue, we find that, here the provisions of the Land Reforms Act have been violated by the company by entering into an agreement for sale of the property with Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty and others and it is also evident that though the company had taken a stand that it never intended to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act and the agreement with Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty was cancelled, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the major portion of the estate had been transferred and numerous sale deeds were registered in violation of the order of the District Collector, Kozhikode. Ext.P11 indicates that the Taluk Land Board initiated suo motu proceedings under Sec.87 of the KLR Act against the company and a draft statement was served on the company directing the company to surrender 335.01 Acres of land. It is also clear from Ext.P11 itself that the Company has contended before the Taluk Land Board that the Company has not sold any land to Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty and agreement had been cancelled as he did not comply with the terms of MOU and that the company did not execute any sale deed in favour of any person. It is also clear from Ext.P11 itself that the Company has contended before the Taluk Land Board that the Company has not sold any land to Sri. P.K.C. Ahammedkutty and agreement had been cancelled as he did not comply with the terms of MOU and that the company did not execute any sale deed in favour of any person. As mentioned earlier the definite contention was that the estate remains as plantation and mere trespass into the estate by anyone does not indicate that lands have been converted into a class of land not exempted. Simply accepting the said contentions the TLB concluded that the company was not liable to surrender an extent of 335.01 Acres as directed. Thus the proceedings under Section 87 of the KLR Act was dropped. 57. Having evaluated the situation relying upon the provisions of the KLR Act quoted above, we are satisfied that the TLB had failed to go deep into the serious issue involved but dealt with the matter in a most casual manner and that, in our view would defeat the whole purpose of KLR Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the ends of justice would be met only if we direct the Taluk Land Board to reopen the proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the KLR Act, to reconsider the issue and to dispose of the same afresh with all parties concerned on the party array, though it may be time consuming. 58. In State of Kerala vs. Krishnan Master, 2008 (1) KLT 641 it is held that Power is vested with the Board to reopen the case if a case was already decided, or to initiate proceedings under Section 87 for taking the land as excess land in excess of the ceiling limit. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Chacko Varghese's case (supra) and Raghavan's case (supra). 59. Recently, while answering a reference made to a Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K. Jacob vs. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, 2018 (4) KLT 913 doubting the decision in State of Kerala vs. Mohammedali Haji, 1996 (1) KLT 584 (DB) it was observed in paragraph 8 as follows: “8. The internal aid shall be applied first before calling for external aid in the interpretation of a statute and this wholesome principle is relevant to construe the term 'commercial site' appearing in the Act. The internal aid shall be applied first before calling for external aid in the interpretation of a statute and this wholesome principle is relevant to construe the term 'commercial site' appearing in the Act. S.81(3) of the Act which enables the Government to grant exemption by notification in Gazette is as follows: “81(3) The Government may, if they are satisfied that is necessary to do so in the public interest:- (a) on account of any special use to which any land is put. (b) on account of any land being bona fide required for the purpose of conversion into plantation or for the extension or preservation of an existing plantation or for any commercial, industrial, educational or charitable purpose, by notification in the Gazette, exempt such land from the provisions of this Chapter, subject to such restrictions and conditions as they may deem fit to impose: Provided that the land referred to in clause (b) shall be used for the purpose for which it is extended within such time as the Government may specify in that behalf; and, where the land is not so used within the time specified, the exemption shall cease to be in force.” (Emphasis supplied) There is no necessity to empower the Government to grant exemption for any commercial or industrial purpose in public interest when commercial sites are already exempted under S.81(1)(q) of the Act. The necessary corollary therefore is that the term 'commercial site' as defined in S.2(5) of the Act read with S.81(1)(q) of the Act has to be given a narrower meaning only. What is relevant under S.81(3) of the Act is that there should be public interest as opposed to private interest and the land bona fide required for the purpose intended.” It was further observed in paragraph No. 13 as: “...............We however add that any class of land earlier exempted in the ceiling case can be converted into any class of land not liable to be exempted under Explanation II to S.87 of the Act. The consequence is that the benefit of the exemption would be lost and the extent added to the account of the assessee or the declarant in determination of his ceiling area. That is a matter to be dealt with by the Taluk Land Board with the assessee or the declarant and other interested parties on the party array and we desist from elaborating further. That is a matter to be dealt with by the Taluk Land Board with the assessee or the declarant and other interested parties on the party array and we desist from elaborating further. Accordingly we overrule the dictum in Mohammedali Haji's case (supra) and approve the dictum in Krishnankutty's case (supra) on the scheme of the Act consistent with its object. The reference is answered as above.” 60. Therefore, we quash Ext.P11 dated 20.6.2013 and mould the relief as below, as we find that it is just, fair and reasonable to direct the Taluk Land Board to deal with the issue with the company/declarant and all the interested and aggrieved parties on the party array in accordance with the provisions of the KLR Act to give a quietus. It is revealed from the records that in fact at least some of the parties are pursuing litigation before different Courts. In view of the above, we make it clear that without all the parties on the party array and without hearing the grievance of all the aggrieved parties, a correct and just adjudication is not possible in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We hope that the parties will also cooperate for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings by the Taluk Land Board, Koyilady. 61. In the result, these Writ Petitions are disposed of as below: (1) W.P. (C) No. 28496 of 2016: Ext.P11 order dated 20.6.2013 of the Taluk land Board is hereby quashed. Suo motu proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy against the Company under Section 87 of KLR Act is reopened. The said proceedings have to be pursued afresh in accordance with the provisions of the KLR Act after issuing notice to the 10th respondent Company, all the persons included in Ext.P18 Government Order and all other interested parties concerned and shall be disposed of at the earliest. Prayer to set aside Ext.P18 being a policy decision of the Government, is disallowed. (2) W.P. (C) No. 22195 of 2017: The reliefs sought for is to quash Ext.P23 which is Ext.P18 in W.P. (C) No. 28496/ 2016 as well to stop fragmentation and sale of the estate. The reliefs sought for is covered by the reliefs granted in W.P. (C) No. 28496/2016. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (2) W.P. (C) No. 22195 of 2017: The reliefs sought for is to quash Ext.P23 which is Ext.P18 in W.P. (C) No. 28496/ 2016 as well to stop fragmentation and sale of the estate. The reliefs sought for is covered by the reliefs granted in W.P. (C) No. 28496/2016. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (3) W.P. (C) No. 8950 of 2015: The relief sought for is to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct and complete investigation on the complaint filed by the petitioner therein. As the Taluk Land Board has been directed to consider the issues involved afresh in the wake of the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 28496 of 2016 and the prayer to set aside Exts.P18/P23 is disallowed, the compliant pending has to be disposed of by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. (4) W.P. (C) No. 6815/2015: Similar reliefs have been sought for to direct the 4th respondent/the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct and complete the investigation on Ext P16. As the Taluk Land Board has to consider the issue involved afresh pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 28496 of 2016 and that the prayer to set aside Ext.P18/P23 is disallowed, the compliant pending has to be disposed of in accordance with law. 62. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances, however parties are directed to bear their own costs.