Partly allowed

Lizy George v. the District Industries Centre

Kerala HC21 Mar 2012WA/561/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted limited relief to appellants facing partial repossession of land due to payment default. The court directed the respondents to ensure road access for the remaining 18.078 cents of land and restoral of any lost area through remeasurement and reallocation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to ensure road access for appellants' 18.078 cents land and restore lost area by remeasuring and earmarking boundaries.

Lizy George Vs the District Industries Centre — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/1ST CHAITHRA 1934

¶7

WA.No. 561 of 2012 () IN WPC/14621/2011

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.14621/2011 DATED 27-02-2012

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/ PETITIONERS

¶10

1. LIZY GEORGE

¶11

W/O.GEORGE, AGED 61 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE

¶12

NALUNNAKKAL P.O., VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. KIZHAKKEKARA LAMPS AND LIGHTENING PVT.LTD.

¶14

D.P.POOVATHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM-686 012

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.K.A.GEORGE

¶16

S/O.K.C.ABRAHAM, AGED 65 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE

¶17

NALUNNAKKAL P.O., VAKATHANAM,

¶18

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 538.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

¶20

RESPONDENT(S):/ RESPONDENTS

¶21

1. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE

¶22

KOTTAYAM-686 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶23

2. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶24

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

¶25

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶26

3. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE

¶27

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶28

4. M/S.AJAY OXYGEN PVT.LTD. APT ID, ABAD MARINE PLAZA, MARINE DRIVE KOCHI-682 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶29

BY ADVOCATE MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY ADVOCATE MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R4

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶32

W.A.No.561 of 2012

¶33

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2012.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent and learned Government Pleader for the remaining respondents.

¶37

The judgment under challenge is one rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the repossession and allotment of land to 4^th respondent on account of appellants' failure to utilise the land for industrial purposes and on account of chronic default in payment of instalments. The land allotted to appellants is 18.078 cents on outright sale basis and balance 20 cents on deferred payment basis. Admittedly, the land resumed is 20 cents in respect of which the appellants could not make payments even after allotment made nearly 20 years back.

¶38

After hearing both sides we feel the appellants are entitled to a limited relief i.e. a direction to the Industries

¶39

W.A.No.561/2012

¶40

-2-

¶41

Department to ensure that the road access and gate to the 18.078 cents of land is retained for the appellants for utilising the land for industrial purposes. If in the course of repossession and reallotment, any hindrance is caused to the road access to the appellants' property, there will be direction to the respondents to ensure that road access is provided to the appellants' property. Similarly, if land repossessed and allotted is such as to reduce the land sold to the appellants, then the difference should be restored to the appellants, i.e. 18.078 cents of land, which will include road access and entrance. By remeasuring and earmarking the boundaries, the Industries Department can achieve the same, and there shall be direction to them to do it in the presence of the parties.

¶42

This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶43

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶44

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶45

Lizy George v. the District Industries Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lizy George v. the District Industries Centre

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

E.Abdul Vahid Vs State of Kerala and Others

Shaji C. Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Joy Abraham Vs the Corporate Manager

Chakradharan Vs State of Kerala

M/S.T O C Disinfectant Ltd@Hindusthan Un Vs State of Kerala,Scry.Taxes Dept.

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Toc Disnifectant Ltd.