Partly allowed

English Indian Clays Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2016WP(C)/6261/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the lease rent assessment by the State. The petitioner claimed the property was in a village area to exempt it from a 20% rule and seek 6% rate. The Court directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the issue within three months of receipt of this judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the entire issue and pass final orders within three months of receipt of this judgment.

English Indian Clays Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, T.C. 79/34, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 021.

¶8

BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD

¶9

SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.N.MANU THAMPI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (U) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2015 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (MS) NO. 208/99/RD DATED 09-06-1999. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02-01-2008 IN O.P. NO. 7027/2002. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22-01-2008. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26-11-2011. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS)NO. 566/2015/RD DATED 12.10.2015.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE R1(A): FRESH DEMAND NOTICE NO. B1-41423/97 DATED 19.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No.6261 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the

¶31

business of mining and processing of China clay. The company was provided with 9.07 Acres of land in various survey numbers of Kadakampally Village by the 1^st respondent. The lease was given subject to the condition that, the company should pay the lease rent at the rate of 6% of the market value. The lease was originally for a period of 25 years, which was extended for a further period of 25 years. During the course of lease, Government amended the rules, by which, the lease rent is calculated at 20% of the market value for commercial purposes in Municipal and Corporation areas. According to the petitioner, the property given to the petitioner is situated in village area and that apart the sanction order provides the lease rent at the rate of 6%. In that circumstances, petitioner submitted objection against the

¶32

W.P.(C). No.6261 of 2015

¶33

¶34

assessment of the lease rent made by the respondents. During the pendency of the objection, petitioner approached this court and secured Ext.P2 judgment, whereby, several directions were issued to the 1^st respondent in respect of the objection raised by the petitioner and pass orders accordingly. However no orders were passed, which persuaded the petitioner to approach this court by filing the present writ petition seeking appropriate direction. During the pendency of this writ petition 1^st respondent passed Ext.P5 order. Therefore, the writ petition was amended seeking to quash Ext.P5 order also.

¶35

Heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶36

The issue to be decided revolves round Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent. Even though various aspects were discussed, ultimately it is stated that, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram shall furnish a detailed and year-wise revised calculation statement as per the direction

¶37

W.P.(C). No.6261 of 2015

¶38

¶39

contained in Ext.P2 judgment. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, the directions issued by this court as per Ext.P2 judgment did not attain a logical conclusion. I also find from Ext.P5 order that the directions issued by this court in Ext.P2 is not complied with by the 1^st respondent in its tenor and terms.

¶40

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to re-consider the whole issue taking note of any representation submitted by the petitioner in that regard and pass final orders on the objection filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶44

smv 03.11.2016

English Indian Clays Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

English Indian Clays Ltd. 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

Sujithkumar Vs the Managing Director, Ksfe

Lalu Divakaran Vs Chief Controller of Explosives

Rajendran Nair Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Malabar Cements Ltd. Vs Sri.K.Kadirvel

Anish.M.K Vs Dist.Collector, Alappuzha

Uralungal Labour Contract Co-Operative Society LTD.NO.10957 Vs the Superintending Engineer