Kerala
Thrissur, Waynad
,
Kollam, Thrissur, Waynad
,
Pathanamthitta
Published :
Jul 2018
|
Updated :
December 19, 2025
Land, law, and legitimacy: The Harrisons Malayalam dispute over illegal holdings in Kerala
Reported by
Sooraj H S
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People affected
2004
Year started
31068.31
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
2004
Year started
31068.31
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Commercial Agriculture/Agro-business
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Commercial Agriculture/Agro-business
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In 2007, the Kerala government released a ‘High Level Committee Report on Harrisons Malayalam LTD’, which stemmed from having received a number of complaints in 2005 regarding "the illegal transfer and sale of lands” by Harrisons Malayalam Ltd (HML). HML, is India's largest producer of rubber, South India's largest cultivator of Tea and perhaps the largest farmer of Pineapple in the region. HML, previously Malayalam Plantations Limited, was formed by the merger of Malayalam Plantations India and Harrison and Cross Field India, can date its business to 1834 with an initial lease of 10 kms for a period of up to 80 years.

The 2007 report found that at least 12,658 acres of land acquired by HML were done so through the illegal alienation of property. These cases of alienation all violated the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The report also found that 59,363 acres had no legal documents or ownership deeds, and subsequently recommended that action be taken to evict the land identified as illegal holding.

Former Revenue Minister Adoor Prakash, at the time, stated that the Kerala government would retrieve the land for distribution among the landless poor families. He welcomed a declaration by HML that it was willing to surrender 834.53 acres of excess land to the State government. The revenue department also received several complaints regarding the sale of Amanda estate, by HML, near Thenmala and Erumely (which was sold to ‘Gospel for Asia’).

Around 2006, revenue commissioner Nivedita P Haran pursued the HML case, releasing a two volume report discussing how the companies case was not a land ceiling case but a case of illegal holdings of acres through forged documents. These findings were further corroborated by a team of 30 revenue officials. In 2011, then revenue minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan decided to go ahead with the findings in the High Court.

In 2017, the government of Kerala decided to build the state's fifth international airport on 2,263 acres of land held by the Gospel for Asia, Believers Church, on the Cheruvaley Estate. This land was purchased from HML in 2005. MG Rajamanickam, a special officer appointed by the state government under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to review the plantations on long-term leasehold, had found the sale illegal and ordered the resumption of the land along with another about 4,750 acres of land similarly sold by the plantation firm in 2015. A Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) investigation into the Harrison Malayalam land deals had revealed that the company had sold the land by forging documents. The sale deeds were not supported by previous documents, which dated back to the colonial era. The total lands in question at 65,000 acres.

On 11 April 2018, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court set aside the order of MG Rajamanikkam, and reinstated 30,000 acres owned and possessed by HML. The Kerala High Court undermined Rajamanickam, claiming he “was far in excess of his powers and without jurisdiction as the title of the land being now with the holders of the respective lands as per the revenue records”. A month later the Supreme Court supported the Kerala High Court’s decision against the Kerala government, allowing the latter to fight for the land title before the civil court.

In 2019, hundreds of landless people from 16 panchayats occupied 100 hectares of land, held by HML, at Thovarimala at Nenmeni pannchayat at Wayanad. The agitation was organised by All India Krantikari Kisan Sabha (AIKKS), under the CPI (ML) Red Star and Adivasi Bharat Mahasabha (ABM). The people were swiftly evicted by a group of 75 forest personnel and 75 policemen. Groups representing the landless claim these lands were intended to be assigned to the landless and claim successive governments have failed to adopt steps towards this. In May 2019, nearly 200 landless Adivasis started protesting outside the Kalpetta District Collectorate, Wayanad.

The state government has since softened its stance on HML and started accepting land taxes from the company. In June 2019, HML filed a petition (WP-C No. 16039/2019) at the Kerala High Court claiming 1.7 acres of land are being taken over by state authorities for upgrading the NH 85 without providing fair compensation. The following month, Justice Muhamed Mustaque, of the Kerala High Court issued an order that land belonging to HML in Pooppara village cannot be taken over as part of the realignment of the NH 85 without following procedure as per the Land Acquisition Act or National Highways Act.

The long-running land dispute between the Kerala government and Harrisons Malayalam Ltd continued to evolve through repeated legal, administrative and policy action. By 2023, only a dozen civil cases had been filed despite earlier directives, prompting fresh instructions to district collectors to accelerate litigation against HML and other plantation companies.

In 2024, the then Wayanad District Collector D R Meghasree filed cases to reclaim over 880 acres in Nenmeni and Muttil South villages, leading the Sub Court in Sulthan Bathery to initiate proceedings and issue notices to HML and the Chembra Peak Estate. (Case No: OS 153/2024 & OS 157/2024)

Meanwhile, the Kerala government sought land for a model township to rehabilitate landslide-affected communities, acquiring over 144 hectares from HML estates under the Disaster Management Act. HML challenged this action, arguing the Act permits only temporary - not permanent - acquisition. In March 2025, the Kerala High Court admitted HMLS's appeals, keeping the dispute active as the government pushed ahead with plans to begin township construction.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

No items found.

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Illegal holding of land

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Forest and Non-Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Revenue Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Harrisons Malayalam Ltd, RPG Enterprises

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

All India Krantikari Kisan Sabha (AIKKS), Adivasi Bharat Mahasabha (ABM)

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Sooraj H S

Sooraj is an activist engaging in human rights and land issues in his home state of Kerala. As a freelance journalist, he also writes about agrarian issues and campus politics. He holds an M.Phil in Sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Show more work
Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

No items found.

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us