Petitioner challenged eviction from industrial land after lease renewal was denied in favor of a higher bidder. Court held that estate benefits include outsiders and dismissed the writ.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not entitled to continuance of occupation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2012/31ST VAISAKHA 1934
WP(C).No. 1196 of 2012 (Y)
PETITIONER :
SHIBU GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS NJARACKKATU HOUSE, EZHUMATOOR.P.O PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SATHISH NINAN
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
RESPONDENTS :
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI.M
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV
W.P.(C).NO.1196/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
AV
W.P.(C).NO.1196/2012
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.3071 OF 2011 IN WPC.2078 OF 2011 EXT.R2(b) : COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.A5-476(1)/2011 DATED 01.08.2011 EXT.R2(c) : COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NOA5-476(1)/2011 DATED 16.01.2012 EXT.R2(d) :COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NOA5-476(1)/2011 DATED 06.03.2012 EXT.R2(e) :COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NOA5-476(1)/2011 DATED 23.03.2012
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
AV
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1196 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the claim of the petitioner for continuance of occupation in an industrial building constructed by the Panchayat in the Ezhumattoor mini industrial estate. The petitioner obtained possession based on a lease granted in his favour. According to the petitioner, the period of the lease was five years and when the petitioner sought its renewal, Panchayat wanted revision of rent by four times. Petitioner says that though he offered reasonable increase in the rent, Panchayat was unwilling to renew the lease. In such circumstances, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2078/11 seeking renewal of the lease and also to quash the eviction notice.
:2 :
WPC.No.1196/12
circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the award in appropriate proceedings and accordingly the petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal and on its rejection by Ext.P6 order, he moved the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing a revision. That revision was also rejected by Ext.P9. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, the writ petition has been filed.
WPC.No.1196/12
:3 :
estate was developed for the benefit of the residents of the Panchayat alone to the total exclusion of others. Consequently, the contention now raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted
and I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the industrial estate was exclusively for the benefit of residents of the Panchayat excluding outsiders.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continuance of occupation in the industrial building.
Whether the tender award to a non-resident 3rd respondent is maintainable in these proceedings.
SHIBU GEORGE
STATE OF KERALA
KOIPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH
ABRAHAM SAMUEL
THE PRESIDENT, KOIPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
