Dismissed

V.Renjeev v. the Secretary

Kerala HC8 Nov 2010WA/1591/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the Kerala High Court considered the appellant's claim to continue occupying expiring industrial premises and to compel the sale of the land at market value. The bench held there was no right to continue occupation and no ground to compel sale, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal fails and is dismissed; no interference warranted; no relief extended.

V.Renjeev Vs the Secretary — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶3

MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1591 of 2010 --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27055/2010 DATED 2.9.2010 ....................

¶4

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶5

¶6

V.RENJEEV, PROPRIETOR, SOUTH INDIAN REFRACTORIES, FUNCTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE FOR CERAMICS, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S.

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶9

---------------------------------1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (S) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

THE KERALA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT COMPANY LTD. (SIDCO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R1,R2 & R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP R4 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R-4 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R-4 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R-4

¶15

SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R-4

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶18

¶19

W.A. No. 1591 of 2010

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶24

The issue involved in this writ appeal is whether the appellant/petitioner could be permitted to continue to occupy the industrial premises let out earlier even after expiry of the tenure years back and whether the land in which the industry has been set up could be ordered to be sold to the appellant considering the request put-forth in this regard.

¶25

The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition as well as the appeal shows that the father of the appellant was allotted a shed/premises in the industrial area way back in the year 1977. The tenure of the lease was for a period of one year. However, the appellant was permitted to occupy the premises even thereafter. In the meanwhile, considering the fact that almost all the industrial units set up in the area had already become defunct, the

¶26

W.A.No.1591 of 2010

¶27

entire land was entrusted back to the third respondent and subsequently, it came to the hands of the 4^th respondent. The appellant wanted to continue the occupation and when steps were taken to evict, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.11822 of 2008 which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment.

¶28

As borne by Ext.P5, this Court observed that the period of the lease was already over and that there was no vested right to continue occupation. Accordingly, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. However, while passing the said verdict, it was observed by the learned Single Judge, that the same will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Government to have the property sold in favour of the appellant after realising the market value.

¶29

Based on the above observation, the appellant preferred a representation before the Government to sell the property to him for the market value. Since no positive steps were taken, the appellant again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32270 of 2009, wherein also interference was declined as borne by Ext.P9.

¶30

W.A.No.1591 of 2010

¶31

The appellant preferred W.A.No.2819 of 2009 before this Court which led to Ext.P10 judgment, whereby the application preferred by the appellant was directed to be considered by the Government. It was pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment that the matter was considered by the Government and the request was turned down, issuing Ext.P11 order dated 2.6.2010, holding that the property could not be sold to the appellant, which in turn was subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) No.27055 of 2010. After considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the claim put forth was not sustainable and the impugned order was not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

¶32

The question to be considered is mainly with regard to the alleged right of the appellant to continue in the premises. The rights and liberties arising out of the lease stand settled, by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment holding that there was no such right; which has become final. The remaining question is with regard to the claim to purchase the land in question, which was directed to be

¶33

W.A.No.1591 of 2010

¶34

¶35

considered by the Government, who considered the same and rejected vide Ext.P11.

¶36

The second respondent has filed a detailed statement narrating the facts and figures, wherein it has been clearly stated that the unit of the appellant no more functions and no manufacturing activity is being done after 2007. It is stated that, nearly 18 units were set up in the industrial area, providing infrastructural facilities including the right to use the 'common kiln' for the manufacturing process of various ceramic products. There was a specific term in the agreement that the 'common kiln' could be utilised by each allottee, atleast for one cycle in every two months and that the estimated time for one cycle was 10 days. Learned Government Pleader has also produced copies of the relevant documents to substantiate the contention that no such facility was utilised by the appellant after 2007 and that the appellant is making use of the premises only to dry the clay, powder the same and sell it as 'fire clay' while no manufacturing activity is being done in any manner. It is also pointed out that, in view of the

¶37

W.A.No.1591 of 2010

¶38

¶39

liability to be discharged to the Kerala State Electricity Board, the property is intended to be transferred to the Board and that the Board is taking steps to utilize the same for their godown and store.

¶40

Considering the facts and circumstances, the question whether the appellant is having any right to compel the respondents to sell the property in his favour, can only be answered in the negative. We do not find any tenable ground to extend any relief. No interference is warranted. Writ appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶41

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice

¶42

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,

¶43

Judge

¶44

vns

V.Renjeev v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Renjeev v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chandran Pillai Vs N.R.Das

Gopalakrishnan Vs Asharaf

Sheriff Nazimudeen Vs State of Kerala

K.S.E.Board Vs K.T.Abdul Kalam Azad

The Commissioner of Land Revenue Vs a.P.Arumughan

K.Suresh Vs K.S.E.B