Dismissed

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Kerala HC11 Feb 2013WP(C)/2192/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand for additional land value. It held that a transferee of land allotted by the Greater Cochin Development Authority remains liable to pay additional land value because the original allottee accepted the condition in the allotment application, and such conditions bind the transferee.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was held liable to remit the demanded additional land value.

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Greater Cochin… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/22ND MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2192 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

-------------

¶8

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE, REPRESENTED BY MR. M.MATHEWS, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CORPORATE SERVICE DEPARTMENT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) SRI.P.R MILTON.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED,GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rvs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 2192 of 2013 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXHIBIT	P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3488/1986 DATED 1-8- 1986 OF ALWAYE SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT	P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15-1-1991 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1437/91 DATED 7-6-1991 OF ALWAYE SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT	P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NLO. 896/01 OF ALWAYE SUB REGISTRY DATED 3-4-1991.
EXHIBIT	P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATE 25-10-2012 ISSUED BY GCDA TO THE PETITIONER BNAK.
EXHIBIT	P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BANK.
RESPONDE	NTS'	EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT R3PHOTOCOPY OF THE TENDER APPLICATION AND CONDITIONS OF ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS SUBMITTED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶20

True Copy/

¶21

rvs.

¶22

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶23

W.P(C).No.2192 of 2013

¶24

------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2013

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

1.Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

2.Ext.R3(a) is an application made by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner pursuant to a tender published by GCDA for allotment of plots within the Thottakkattukara Town Planning Scheme. One of the clauses of Ext.R3(a) reads thus:

¶28

“I hereby agree to pay the additional cost of the land, development charges and miscellaneous charges (over and above the tentative price stated in the allotment order) if any, that may be fixed by the Board of Greater Cochin Development Authority.”

¶29

3.The conditions of allotment of plots, which are also enclosed to Ext.R3(a), contain a similar provision in clause 8 therein, which reads thus:

¶30

WPC.2192/13

¶31

¶32

“8. The allottee shall be liable to pay additional land value as are found necessary due to further investment for development of the land or payment of enhanced land value pursuance of order from court or government. The decision of the Board fixing sale price of such plots will be final.”

¶33

4.Therefore, in the light of the above in Ext.R3(a), it must be held that the allottee is liable to pay additional land value in the circumstances mentioned therein. Based on Ext.R3(a) application made by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Smt.Jessy Elizabeth Jacob, a plot of land was alloted to her in 1982. Ext.P1 dated 1.8.1986 is the sale deed executed by GCDA in her favour. Subsequently, Smt.Jessy obtained permission of the GCDA in terms of clause 6 of Ext.P1 for alienating the property. The request was considered and by Ext.P2 dated 15.1.1991, GCDA permitted her to alienate the property. Accordingly, the property was sold to the petitioner by Ext.P3 sale deed of 7.6.1991. It should be mentioned herein that neither in Ext.P1 nor Ext.P3, is there any obligation created upon the transferee of the property to pay any

¶34

WPC.2192/13

¶35

¶36

additional land value to the GCDA. In spite of it, the respondent issued Ext.P7 notice, calling upon the petitioner to remit `3,68,605/- being the additional land value of the land covered by Exts.P1 and P3. It was thereupon, the writ petition was filed challenging the demand for additional land value.

¶37

5.The contention raised by the respondent in the statement filed is that the sale was conditional in as much as the allottee was required to remit additional land value. It is stated that the petitioner, being a transferee of the allottee, is equally bound by the terms of the transfer in favour of its transferor and that as the transferee is liable to pay additional land value, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded by Ext.P7.

¶38

6.Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is liable for the amount in question. Ext.R3(a) is the application submitted by the original allottee. In that application and also in the terms and conditions of sale, the

¶39

WPC.2192/13

¶40

¶41

original allottee had undertaken to discharge any liability towards additional land value. It was accepting this condition of sale prescribed by the respondent that the original allottee applied for allotment and got the land allotted. If the original allottee was bound by these conditions, irrespective of whether the conditions are incorporated in the sale deed executed in its favour or not, petitioner, being the transferee of the original allottee, is bound by all such conditions of transfer which were binding on the original allottee.

¶42

7.To my mind, the original allottee was liable for payment of the additional land value as per the clauses in Ext.R3(a). If that be so, for the above reason, the transferee is also liable for the additional land value. Hence, the petitioner cannot avoid the liability. This view is fully supported by the judgment of this Court dismissing OP.9387/94, filed by Balmer Lawrie & Company Ltd., Aroor. That judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by dismissing W.A.835/96.

¶43

WPC.2192/13

¶44

¶45

In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.

¶46

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC

¶47

Judge kkb.12/2.

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abubacker Vs Mr. Reghu R. , the Special Tahsildar

Kamalamma Vs the Authorized Officer

A.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Bindu Vs Satheesh

Fathima Aslam Vs the Authorised Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce

M/S.May Fair Hotels, Pudukkad Vs the Sales Tax Officer, Irinjalakkuda