Dismissed

C.P Damodaran Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016WA/59/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal dismissed a challenge to a writ petition judgment where the housing board demanded additional land acquisition costs. The High Court held it cannot adjudicate factual account disputes or cost computations, remitting such matters to the civil court within its contractual framework.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs to determine the account statement claims.

C.P Damodaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937 WA.No. 59 of 2016 () IN WP(C).21990/2008 -----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.10.2015 IN WPC NO.21990 OF 2008

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶6

C.P DAMODARAN PILLAI CHELACKAL, KUNNAMTHANNAM, PALAKKKATHAKIDI P.O. TIRUVALLA-689581.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.PAUL JACOB (P)

¶8

/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, 3RD FLOOR HSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036.

¶11

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KOTTAYAM DIVISION KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-689573.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAIUS R2 &3 BY SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.

¶13

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-012016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

kp/-

¶15

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶16

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.A. No.59 of 2016

¶17

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶21

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 7.10.2015 in W.P. (C).No.21990 of 2008. The petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶22

Short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner claims that the amounts demanded in terms of Ext.P11 was unconscionable and not in terms with the contractual provisions.

¶23

It is inter alia contended that the petitioner purchased certain item of land from the Kerala State Housing Board with building thereon. Though the land value was fixed in terms of Ext.P8 dated 20.4.1999 and the monthly instalments have been fixed, by Ext.P11 the petitioner was called upon to pay a further amount of 3,78,711/-.₹ According to the petitioner, once the land value has already been fixed after land acquisition proceedings, there is no reason why additional amounts are being required from the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Single Judge after evaluating the factual aspects involved in the matter observed that, as the cost of construction was shown as the final price and the cost of land and development was

¶25

W.A. No. 59 of 2016 -2-

¶26

shown as tentative in Ext.P7, the petitioner cannot now turn around and dispute the genuineness of the claim put forward by the respondent. That apart, it was observed that the work statement filed by the respondent clearly indicate additional expenditure incurred by the respondent Board towards the cost of acquisition of land and the petitioner is under contractual obligation to pay the amount.

¶27

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that, once the land value has been fixed after the acquisition proceedings and when it is clearly stated in Ext.P8 order dated 20.4.1999, fixing the monthly instalments, there was no reason to demand any excess amount as claimed in Ext.P11.

¶28

On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that they have given all the necessary details regarding the acquisition costs and the expenditure incurred by the Board, which the petitioner is bound to pay in terms of the contractual provisions.

¶29

Apparently, the dispute between parties is with regard to the claim made by the respondent Board. This Court cannot go into the factual details of the matter, especially computation of the account statement submitted by the respondent Board and arrive at a finding regarding the actual cost incurred by the respondent Board. If the petitioner has any dispute regarding such statement of accounts, the

¶30

W.A. No. 59 of 2016 -3-

¶31

remedy is to approach the civil court seeking for settlement of accounts or for other reliefs as may be advised. This is especially so, since the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement of sale of property and there is a provision which enables the Board to recover all the cost incurred for acquisition of land and for other matters in connection thereof. Ext.P8 prima facie indicates that it is a tentative amount and therefore it cannot be said that it is a final amount as has been claimed by the appellant.

¶32

In the said circumstance, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly this writ appeal is dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. Of course the civil court can decide the matter untrammeled by any of the observations made by this Court on merits of the rival contentions.

¶33

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶35

kp/-19.01.16

C.P Damodaran Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P Damodaran Pillai v. State of Kerala

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

Vijayan Vs a.Basheer

M/S.Southern Field Ventrues Private Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director Vs Sri.G.J.Teggi, the Custodian of Ecologically Fragile Lands and Chief Conservator of Forests

Abdul Rashid Vs the Special Tahsildar (La),Trichur.

Jayasree S. Vs Coir Board

Balakrishna Kurup Vs Dr.M.K.Sasidharan Pillai

Medical Council of India (Mci) Vs v.N.Public Health and Eduational Trust