Disposed

Hrishikesh v. Technology Parks

Kerala HC15 Jul 2014WP(C)/23021/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the respondent's failure to allot and deliver possession of 2 acres of land allotted under a letter and partially executed lease deed. The court upheld the petitioner's right to the allotted land against the respondent's unilateral proposal to reassign it, directing allotment of equivalent space within one month while keeping the respondent's contractual right to cancel the a

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to allot equivalent space to the petitioner within one month; the respondent's right to cancel the allotment under contracts or law reserved.

Hrishikesh Vs Technology Parks — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2014/24TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 23021 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

HRISHIKESH, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.SASIBHUSHANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 301, HIJRAME TOWER, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS-KERALA(TECHNO PARK), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 581.

¶13

2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS-KERALA (TECHNO PARK), TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 581.

¶14

BY SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC, TECHNOPARK BY SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T), SC,TECHNOPARK BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2014, THE COURT ON 15/07/2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rvs/

¶17

WP(C).No. 23021 of 2013 (C)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

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

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT OF LAND DATED 21/6/2010. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 29/9/2010 AS FIRST RESPONDENT AS LESSOR AND COMPANY OF PETITIONER AS LESSEE.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/10/2011 SENT BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/3/2013 SENT BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/8/2013 SENT BY PETITIONER.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

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

¶25

EXHIBIT R2(A) COPY OF THE REVISED MASTER PLAN WITH THE SITE ALLOTTED AND REALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER IS HIGHLIGHTED.

/true copy/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs/

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.23021 of 2013

¶30

Dated this the 15^th day of July 2014

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to register Ext.P2 and to deliver actual possession of the property covered by Ext.P2 after fixing its boundaries.

¶33

The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner is the Managing Director of a company engaged in the business of Information Technology related services in the Techno Park Campus at Kariavattom, Thiruvananthapuram applied for additional land in the Techno park campus. The company was allotted 2 acres of land in plot No.8 in Phase-III for a consideration of Rs.2.4 Crores. They were also called upon to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,43,960/-. Ext.P1 is the letter of allotment. He paid the entire consideration and Ext.P2 document dated 29/9/2010 was executed and registered as a lease deed. The lease was for a period of 90 years and he had agreed to

¶34

W.P.C.No.23021/2013 2

¶35

pay yearly rent of Rs.10,000/- per Acre. Though the petitioner requested to deliver possession of the land covered by lease, the same was not granted. When he made enquiries, it was understood that there was a plan to reallocate the land. Petitioner had sent Ext.P5 requesting for earmarking the boundaries and to deliver the land to take up further proceedings. Respondents did not take any action in the matter and hence he filed this writ petition.

¶36

Counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent. Execution of Ext.P2 and the receipt of the amount is not disputed. It is stated that the land in terms of Ext.P2 was peg-marked on 06/04/2011. It is contended that as per the Special Economic Zone Act and Rules, the allottee is supposed to get a co-developer approval and without obtaining the same, the land mentioned in Ext.P2 cannot be registered in their name. The only action taken by the company is that they have informed the 1^st respondent about appointing a consultant for the project. It is further

¶37

W.P.C.No.23021/2013

¶38

¶39

stated that the Board of Technopark decided to revise the master plan and the land in question along with additional 8 acres totalling 10 acres earmarked for a major IT company to be developed by a co-developer at the Emerging Kerala Global Connect Event 2012. This fact was communicated to all the allottees orally including the petitioner who agreed to the proposal at the relevant time. It is stated that as per the norms followed by the 1^st respondent, the allottees will have to commence erection of structures not later than six months from the date of signing the lease deed and commence commercial production within 36 months from the date of signing lease deed. They produced Ext.R2(a), a revised master plan which indicates their proposal to allot the same extent of land to the petitioner in another area. It is therefore contended that since the land proposed to be allotted to the petitioner has to be given as a single plot to another developer, an alternate land with similar advantages can be given to the petitioner and it is

W.P.C.No.23021/2013

earmarked.

Though such a proposal has been made during the course of hearing, the petitioner did not agree to the same. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner contending that codeveloper approval as contemplated under the Special Economic Zone Act is required only for those companies who intend to let out or sell the constructed space to other IT companies. The said provision does not apply to the petitioner. It is further stated that the property covered by Ext.P2 is more convenient with close proximity to offices in Phase-III and he has not agreed to give up the property covered by Ext.P2 and he has no intention to do so.

¶44

Perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner was allotted 2 Acres of land in Plot No.8 of Phase-III. Ext.P2 is the lease deed which is executed on 29/09/2010. Though the lease is for a period of 90 years, the document is neither properly stamped nor registered. Therefore the document cannot confer any legal right on the petitioner to claim any

¶45

W.P.C.No.23021/2013

¶46

¶47

benefit on the scheduled property.

¶48

However, it is clear that pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner has paid Rs.2.4 Crores to the 1^st respondent and therefore 1^st respondent is under obligation to allot the plot in terms of Ext.P1 to the petitioner. If, however, the respondents are of the view that the said allotment has to be cancelled by giving the petitioner an alternate land, they are entitled to take appropriate proceedings for cancellation of the said allotment and offer another plot. This depends upon the contract between the parties. Perusal of Ext.P2, which at best could be looked into for collateral purposes, provides the terms and conditions between the parties and unless any provision is available which enables the respondents to cancel the allotment and such contractual provision is in force, it may not be possible for the respondents to unilaterally cancel the said allotment. Otherwise, there has to be a consensus between the parties.

¶49

W.P.C.No.23021/2013

¶50

¶51

True that the respondents may require to allot a larger extent of land to another entrepreneur or company, but it should not be by taking a unilateral action to terminate the allotment in favour of the petitioner.

¶52

Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶53

i) The respondents shall take necessary steps to allot the space offered to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

ii) However, the right of the respondents, if any, to cancel the allotment in accordance with the contractual provisions or under any law in force is kept open, which shall be exercised by them, if so advised, within the period aforesaid.

¶55

(sd/-)

¶56

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶57

jsr

¶58

W.P.C.No.23021/2013 7

Hrishikesh v. Technology Parks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrishikesh v. Technology Parks

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

Iqbal Vs Asharaf K.K.

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

N Somakumar Vs Kerala Water Authority

Bimal V.S Vs Aiport Authoirty of India

Dr.Arun.B.R. Vs Union of India

Payyannur Labour Contract Co-Op. Society Vs State of Kerala