Government possesses statutory power to resume leased land for public purposes under Land Assignment Rules.

The Petitioner, Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union (ERCMMPU), challenged Government Order (G.O.) Ext.P15 dated 11.06.2025.

This order bifurcated two acres of land in Munnar held by the Petitioner, resuming 130 cents for the 6th Respondent (Kerala State Livestock Development Board) for a new Central Government scheme, while leaving 70 cents for the Petitioner.

The land was originally transferred in 1969 for a milk chilling plant.

Through various G.O.s between 1983 and 1990, commercial units (including chilling plants) of the then KLD MM Board were transferred to the 4th Respondent (KCMMF) on a nominal 99-year lease for the "Operation Flood-II" programme.

The Petitioner claimed rights through KCMMF.

The Government contended that the Munnar plant was never formally transferred and that ownership remained with the KLD Board.

1. Whether a lease in respect of the subject property was created in favor of the 4th Respondent (KCMMF)?

2. Whether the factual finding in Ext.P15 that the Munnar chilling plant was not transferred to the 4th Respondent is legally sustainable?

3. Whether the Government possesses the power to terminate the lease and whether Ext.P15 suffers from illegality in the context of such termination?

Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, particularly Section 2(a) (defining assignment to include leases) and Section 3 (governing land assignment subject to restrictions).

Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, specifically Rule 13 (leases of land required for future public purposes) and Rule 15(4), which empowers the authority to terminate a lease for Government or public purposes upon giving sixty days' notice.

Doctrine of Substantial Compliance regarding statutory notice requirements.

The Court first determined that a valid lease existed despite the absence of a formal deed, noting that various G.O.s (Ext.P3, P19) and the actual handover of possession to the Petitioner established a leasehold interest.

Regarding the transfer of the Munnar plant, the Court rejected the Government’s reliance on a 1998 G.O. (which omitted Munnar from a list of transferred lands), ruling that earlier specific valuations (Ext.R6(e)) and the Petitioner’s long-standing possession made the transfer a fait accompli.

However, the Court held that since the land was Government property, it remained subject to the 1964 Rules.

Under Rule 15(4), the Government has the power to resume land for "public purpose," which the Court found satisfied by the proposed Central Government scheme to be implemented by the KLD Board.

Finally, the Court held that the series of ministerial meetings and committee inspections involving the Petitioner constituted "substantial compliance" with the 60-day notice requirement, fulfilling the statutory intent.

The Court held that while the Petitioner held the land under a valid lease, the State possessed the statutory authority under Rule 15(4) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, to terminate the lease for a public purpose.

The resumption of 130 cents of land was deemed legal and procedurally sound due to substantial compliance with notice requirements.

The Petitioner was permitted to retain 70 cents of the land as per the impugned G.O.