KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 27-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

356 
KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER 
April 27, 1972 
[S. M. SrKRr, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND 
H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
B 
Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (Kera/a Act 
5 of 1971)-Comvetency of State legislature to enact-Sections 4 & 5 of 
Act do not fa// under entry 52 List I but under entries 18 of List II and 
.i2 of List III In Seventh Schedule of Constitution-Act whether has pro-
tection of Act 31A of Constitution-Land in question whether °'estate', 
The petitioner was in possession of an area of approximately 1,27,904 
acres, commonly known as the 'Concession Area' lying contiguously 
in the Kannan Devan Hills village. The concession was firs.t given to the 
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant company in 1877 by the poonjar 
Chief for a consideration of Rs. 5,0001-. After some years a yearly sum 
of Rs. 3,000 was to be paid to the rent collector of the Chief. In 1878 
the Maharaja of Travancoro ratified the Concession on c~rtain conditions. 
In 1886 the agreement called the Second P.ooniat Ccincession was entered 
into modifying. the previous deed of ratification. 
A Royal Proclamation 
was made on September 24, 1899 whereby the Poonjar Chief surrendered 
the propriety rights which he had exercised over the tract known as 
Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills. 
According to the petitioner it had 
all times been holding, cultivating, enjoying and dealing with the Conca-
sion land as the absolute owner thereof. The petitioner further alleged that 
it had established 23 tea estates, with factories in each estate for the 
manufacture of tea, hospitals,. quarters, township and shopping centres. 
The Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption cJf Lands) Act 1971 (Kerala Act 5 
of 1971) the lands agricultural & n&n-agricultural situated in the Kannan 
Devan Hills Vilj.<lge vested in the Government Qf Kerala. The petitioner 
company filed a :ovrit petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging 
certain provisions of die Act. 
The questions that fell for consideration 
were : (i) whether the impugned Act was within the legislative com-
petence of the State of Kerala; (ii) whether the impugned Act was pro-
tected from challenge under Art 3 lA of the Constitution. 
HELD : (i) The State has legislative competence to legislate on entry 
18 List II and entry 42 List III. 
This power cannot be denied on the 
ground that it has some effect on an industry controlled under entry 52 
List T. 
Effect is not tho same thing as subjectl-matter. If a State Act, 
otherwise valid, has effect on a matter in List I it does not cease to be 
legislation with respect to an entry in List II or List Ill. The object of 
ss. 4 and 5 seems to be enable the State to acquire all the lands whic'.1 do 
not fall within the categories (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4(i). These provi-
sions are really incidental to the exercise of the power of acquisition. The 
State cannot be denied a power to ascertain what land should be acquired 
by it in the public interest. [369 C-Dl 
The fact that the plantation was run as an integrated unit cannot 
impinge upon and :take away the legislative power of the State in respect 
of List II entry 18" 370 [F-G] 
Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] S.C.R. 
393, 420 
and Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Attnrney General, [1950) A.C. 
122, 123, 140, applied. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
KANNAN DEVAN HILLS CO. V. KERALA (Sikri, C.J.) 
357 
Baiinath Kedai v. State of Blhar, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 100, Harakchand 
Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 712 and State 
of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Damodar Patilrhdnd, [19681 3 S.C.R. 712, 
referred to. 
There was no r~pugnance between the provisi'?ns of the i'!'p~gned Act 
and the Tea Act. It was said that there is conthct ~use 1t 1s the T-:a 
Board and not the Land Board, which should determme what land is 
necessary for the efficient working of the plantation; but Parliament has 
not chosen even if it could., to say so. [373G-Hl 
Paresh Chandra Chatterjee v. The State of Assam and Another, [1961] 
3 S.C.R. 88, applied. 
(ii) On the material placed before the C',0urt it was difficult to resist 
the conclusion that the lands in dispute fell within the expression 'J anmam 
right'. 
It is stated in Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume IV 
there are no lands that do not belong to a Janmam and the Sircar becomes 
a Janmi by escheat, confiscation or otherwise. 
The effect of the Royal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.