Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court

"The very purpose of stipulating 60 days' notice to the lessee under the Government is to enable it to relocate... When that purpose is amply served, the situation is governed by the doctrine of substantial compliance." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 10, 2026, held that the State Government has the statutory power to resume leased public land for a public purpose, and strict adherence to a 60-day notice period is not required if there is "substantial compliance."

A single-judge bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed that when the core purpose of a notice requirement is met, "the situation is governed by the doctrine of substantial compliance," thereby upholding a Government Order that resumed 130 cents of land from a co-operative milk union.

The Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union challenged a Government Order that bifurcated two acres of land it held on lease, allowing the Union to retain 70 cents while resuming 130 cents for the Kerala State Livestock Development Board (KLD Board). The Union claimed it held a valid 99-year lease over the entire property and that the government lacked the authority to unilaterally resume possession without adhering to mandatory notice requirements.

The primary questions before the court were whether a valid lease existed in the absence of a formal deed, and whether the Munnar chilling plant was legally transferred to the Union. The court was also called upon to determine if the Government had the power to terminate the lease and resume the land under Rule 15(4) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, without issuing a strict 60-day written notice.

Absence Of Formal Deed Does Not Invalidate Lease

Analyzing the historical transfer of assets, the court first rejected the State's contention that no valid lease existed merely because a formal document was never executed. The court noted that a series of Cabinet Notes and Government Orders from 1983 onwards established a clear intention to grant a 99-year lease to the apex federation under which the petitioner operated. The bench stated that "the absence of a formal lease deed cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that there was no lease at all."

Subsequent Orders Cannot Nullify Completed Transfers

The State argued that a 1998 Government Order did not specifically mention the Munnar chilling plant, implying it was never transferred to the milk union. Rejecting this, the court held that earlier instruments conclusively established the transfer of the plant. The judge noted that an order issued in 1998 "cannot nullify the effect of the transactions which transpired earlier," emphasizing that if the government wanted to exclude the plant, "the same should have been expressly spelt out."

"Since the land in question, which is given on lease is Government land, the same can only be governed by the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the Rules framed thereunder."

Statutory Power To Resume Leased Land

Despite finding that a valid lease existed, the court affirmed the Government's overriding authority to resume the land. The court observed that the assignment of such properties is governed by the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, and its corresponding rules. Relying on Rule 15(4) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, the bench affirmed that the competent authority can terminate a lease if the land is required for a public purpose.

Substantial Compliance Of Notice Period

Addressing the petitioner's argument that the mandatory 60-day written notice under Rule 15(4) was not served, the court looked at the preceding events. It noted that multiple high-level meetings, minister-led reviews, and committee inspections had taken place months before the impugned order was issued. The court found that these deliberations provided the petitioner with ample knowledge and opportunity to present its case, satisfying the core legal requirement.

Purpose Of Notice Is Relocation

The court elaborated on the legislative intent behind the notice period, noting it is meant to give a lessee time to relocate their operations. Because the government order permitted the Union to retain the 70 cents of land it was actively using, no actual relocation was necessary. Holding that the "purpose is amply served," the court found no violation of the statutory notice period and validated the government's action.

Concluding that the government lawfully exercised its statutory power to resume public land for a central government scheme, the court found no illegality in the impugned Government Order. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the co-operative union was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2026