Disposed

Eloor v. the Secretary to Government

Kerala HC30 Jun 2014WP(C)/11500/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, who had lost part of its allotted industrial land, challenged an agreement allowing the Government to allot that same plot to another party. The High Court found the building allocation complied with prior review directions regarding access and dismissed the challenge, but directed the Government to act on a pending representation from a petitioner representative within three mo

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed (allotment challenge declined) but the Government was directed to consider the pending representation (Ext. P12) and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Eloor Vs the Secretary to Government — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/9TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 11500 of 2014 (J)

¶6

PETITIONERS: -

¶7

ELOOR – KADUNGALLORE PANCHAYAT AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL HARIJAN MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD E. 704, (NOW AS SCSCS LIMITED, E-704), MUPPATHADAM.P.O., ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY C.C.SAJEEVAN.

¶8

V.KAMALAN, PRESIDENT, E.K.P.AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL SCSCS LTD, MUPPATHADAM.P.O, ALUVA.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN

¶10

RESPONDENTS: -

¶11

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 685 001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685001.

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶14

T.J.VARGHESE, S/O.T.O.JOSEPH, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAYATH ROAD, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI-682025.

¶15

R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) R4 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA BABU R4 BY ADV. SMT.AMMU CHARLES

¶16

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANEETHA RAVINDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 11500 of 2014 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -

¶21

EXT P1 :	COPY OF THE REVISED ORDER NO.D 14562/80 DATED 2/03/1985.
EXT.P2 :	COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.3.1985.
EXT.P3 :	COPY OF THE CHARGE LIST.
EXT.P4 :	COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 5/03/2010.
EXT.P5 :	COPY OF THE AGREEMENT MADE WITH SMT.SEETHALAKSHMI DATED 18/11/93.
EXT.P6 :	COPY OF THE BILLS AND RECEIPTS.
EXT.P7 :	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 2126/2010 DATED 01/03/2011.
EXT.P8 :	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN REVIEW PETITION DATED 11/04/201.
EXT.P9 :	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REVIEW PETITION NO.288 & 289 OF 2011 DATED 13/11/2013.
EXT.P10 :	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30/12/2013.
EXT.P11 :	COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18/03/2014.
EXT.P12 :	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.04.2014.
EXT.P13 :	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE UNIT.
EXT.P14 :	COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE UNIT.
RESPONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS : -

¶22

EXHIBIT R4(a) : TRUE COPY OF DETAILS ALONG WITH SKETCH ETC. OF THE LAND HANDED OVER TO R4. EXHIBIT R4(b) : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 25.4.2014 SUBMITTED BY R4 TO THE S.I. OF POLICE.

¶23

WP(C).No. 11500 of 2014 (J)

¶24

EXHIBIT R4(c) : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 22.4.2014 SUBMITTED BY R4 TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, DIC, KAKKANAD.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P.(C).No.11500 of 2014

¶30

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2014

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

¶33

Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 executed between the

¶34

Government and the 4^th respondent. It is stated that by virtue of the said agreement, an extent of 20 cents of land was allotted in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P11 is only the first page of the agreement. The entire document is not available.

¶35

Petitioner was allotted 75 cents of land in the Industrial Area in terms of Ext.P1 order. The land was allotted for the purpose of setting up a manufacturing unit. The agreement was executed on 28.3.1985 in terms of Ext.P2. Since the petitioner was unable to start the unit, about 55 cents of land was resumed by the Government. A portion of the said land is now permitted to be assigned in favour of the 4^th respondent. Petitioner had challenged the resumption by filing the writ petition before this Court. This Court did not interfere with the order of resumption. However when a review petition was filed

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C).No. 11500 of 2014

¶38

this Court observed that the building constructed by the petitioner should not be given to others and the balance extent of land can be allotted to other parties after excluding the building and also providing access to the building. It is the contention of the petitioner that contrary to the order in the review petition, i.e.Ext.P8, land was allotted to the 4^th respondent preventing access to the petitioner's building. That apart, a representation is pending before the Government as Ext.P12, which is not disposed of so far.

¶39

Counter affidavit is filed by the 4^th respondent inter alia stating that they have obtained allotment of an industrial plot, where they intent to start a unit for paint manufacturing. According to them petitioner has necessary access to their plot and the contrary contention is absolutely baseless.

¶40

Ext.P14 is a rough sketch, which would show that the

¶41

petitioner's unit as well as that of the 4^th respondent's allotted area is having separate access to the road. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that their building cannot have access cannot be sustained. Still further, the argument of the petitioner

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No. 11500 of 2014

¶44

is that if the Government considers Ext.P12 and passes a favourable order, their requirement is for the adjacent land and if it is allotted to the 4^th respondent, they may not get the advantage of utilising the adjacent land.

¶45

It is pertinent to note that despite the fact that an allotment was made in respect of 75 cents of land as early as on 2.3.1985, and an agreement was executed immediately thereafter, the petitioner was unable to utilise the same for the intended purpose, as a result of which, the Government was forced to resume 55 cents of land. Once the resumption had been completed and the same has been confirmed by this Court, I do not think that the petitioner can ventilate a further grievance that the adjacent plot should not be given to any body else. The only restriction imposed on the respondent authorities was to ensure that the petitioner has access to the main road. It is evident from the rough sketch produced that the petitioner's building has access to the main road. That apart, the building constructed by the petitioner had not been resumed. Under such circumstances, the respondent authorities have already complied

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C).No. 11500 of 2014

¶48

with the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the allotment in favour of the 4^th respondent cannot be found fault with.

¶49

Having regard to these factual circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the agreement between the Government and 4^th respondent. However, if the Government is willing to provide additional land to the petitioner, it shall always be open for the Government to provide the same if land is available and the petitioner projects any purposeful need for such land.

¶50

In the said circumstances, while declining the relief of challenging Ext.P11, the Government is directed to consider Ext.P12, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/ A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶53

jm/

Eloor v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eloor v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thampan Thomas Vs District Collector

Nisha.S. Vs State of Kerala

K. Rajeevan Vs the State Human Rights Commission Represented by Its Registrar

Biju Chirattavayalil Vs State of Kerala

Jose Ponatt Vs the Village Officer

Thejaswini Co- Operative Hospital& Medical Research Centre Ltd. Vs Nileshwar Municipality