The activity of Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Ltd (KDHP) in Munnar is illegal, the state revenue department has submitted before the Kerala high court.
The government’s stand is crucial in the context of the ongoing encroachment tussle between various parties and the state.
“Either KDHP or its predecessors Tata Tea Ltd has no place of business in the country as the predecessor company was registered in Scotland. So the activity of the company in India is illegal,” the submission claimed.
Revenue under secretary Muhammed Sherrif, made clear in the affidavit that no permission of the Union Government or the state was ever obtained for the functioning of the company.
The submission was made on a plea by KDHP, seeking permission to operate 24 of its bungalows in Idukki for tourism purposes.
The state said the company’s plan to convert its bungalows in Munnar and Devikulam into resorts or guesthouses for tourism purpose was illegal.
The state also submitted that, according to the Kannan Devan Hills act, the entire lands in the Kannan Devan Hills village were resumed by the government and an extent of 5,8741.82 acres was restored to the company for agriculture purposes only.
Thus, the land and the buildings belonged to the state government. The company was only the
lessee with the stipulations prescribed in the lease agreement executed between John Daniel Manroe and the erstwhile Poonjar Koikal Valiya Raja.
The lease agreement was ratified by the state and the interest of the lessor had been assumed. Hence the owner of the land in KDH was the state government.
As per the recommendation of the land board, the government had directed the district collector in 2006 to check and initiate action against the violation of provisions of the KDH Act.
The collector inquired the matter and found that the company had leased some bungalows to tourism-related firms and other bungalows were converted as home stays/guesthouses by the company, either for itself or for commercial purposes.
The transfer and conversion of the land and building for a purpose other than agriculture was violation of the provisions of the act, the state argued.