Allowed

Teeson Treads Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017WP(C)/26445/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted the petitioner company to have the land classified as its private property (purayidom) instead of Government puramboke in revenue records, while maintaining the restriction that it can only be used for industrial purposes as per the original assignment terms.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 6th respondent (Tahsildar) to classify the land as purayidom in the petitioner's name instead of Government puramboke and complete the mutation within 3 months, subject to the original in

Teeson Treads Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 26445 of 2013 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

TEESON TREADS PVT. LTD., REGD. OFFICE: TC 50/43, TEESON BUILDING, GURUVAYUR ROAD, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SATHYANATHAN K.M.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶13

4. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY RANGE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶15

6. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶16

7. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

R1 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN R7 BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

msv/

¶20

WP(C).No. 26445 of 2013 (E)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA BEARING NO.B1-25086/83 ISSUED TO V.JACOB IN SY.NO.19/1 OF VELAPPAYA VILLAGE IN THRISSUR TALUK, WHICH STOOD CORRECTED AS 19/4P IN RESPECT OF 50 CENTS OF DRY LAND.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN THE KOTTAYAM EDITION OF THE MANORAMA DAILY DT.24-12-1998.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.228/2000 OF SRO, MUNDOOR EXECUTED BY THE KFC IN FAVOUR OF SUKUMARAN.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1163/2000 OF SRO MUNDOOR EXECUTED BY SUKUMARAN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.24-3-2001 TOWARDS REMITTANCE OF TAX.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.24-3-2001 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, TAHSILDAR AND VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE SURVEY NUMBERS.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE SAID INTIMATION DT.29-6-2013 RECEIVED FROM THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR.

¶32

EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.24-4-1996 ADDRESSED TO THE GM, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES BY THE KFC.

¶33

EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DT.14-6-2013 ADDRESSED TO THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR.

¶34

EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT NOW REMAINING IN THE BASIC TAX REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE RE-SURVEY NO.14/53.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶41

============================== W.P.(C)No.26445 of 2013

¶42

============================== Dated this, the 02^nd day of March, 2017.

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

Even though, at first sight, it appears that there are several questions of facts which are in dispute in this case, on a deeper examination, I see that most of them can be easily resolved without much of a disputation on either side.

¶45

The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, who purchased a certain extent of land from the Kerala Financial Corporation in a sale that was conducted by it under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Apparently, this property was originally assigned under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules to a certain Mr.V.Jacob with a rider that the land shall be used only for industrial purposes and for the purpose of starting an industry for shot blasting and pattern making. The patta in question in favour of the

¶46

W.P.(C)No.26445 of 2013 : 2 :

¶47

aforementioned Mr.V.Jacob has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P1. This patta also has another clause which permitted the assignee to mortgage the land to the Kerala Financial Corporation, for financial assistance.

¶48

It appears that the said Mr.V.Jacob mortgaged the property to KFC, but, that the loan went out of order. To recover the amounts under the said financial assistance, the KFC issued Ext.P2 notification calling for tenders for sale of the property. The petitioner was a successful tenderer and as per Ext.P3 sale deed, the property was transferred to him without any limitations or without any further covenants. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the authorities for effecting transfer of registry in his name and for such purpose, made appropriate applications. His application was initially considered by the 4^th respondent, who issued Ext.P7 order holding that the land in question, on account of the sale by the KFC, had ceased to be a Government puramboke, and that it will have to be classified as purayidom in the name of the purchaser, namely, the petitioner. This order

¶49

W.P.(C)No.26445 of 2013 : 3 :

¶50

was transmitted for necessary action to the 6^th respondent

¶51

Tahsildar. However, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P10, wherein, he maintained that the property cannot be treated as a purayidom, because, the tenure of the property was only for the purpose of starting of an industry and that therefore, such change in the records is not maintainable. This order was confirmed by the Director of Industries as per Ext.P12. The petitioner has therefore, impugned Exts.P10 and P12 orders in this writ petition.

¶52

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri.G.Keerthivas; the learned Standing Counsel for the KFC and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6.

¶53

As I have indicated above, at first view, it might appear that there are several contests in this case. But, on a closer scrutiny, it is obvious that the only issue that is alive in this writ petition is whether the property will be deemed to have been controlled by the terms of Ext.P1 patta and specifically the condition as to the tenure of the

¶54

W.P.(C)No.26445 of 2013 : 4 :

¶55

property and the purposes for which it could be used. There cannot be any doubt that the property was constrained by the conditions in Ext.P1, hence, it could have been used only for an industrial purpose and for the specific purposes which was permitted thereunder. There cannot be any dispute on that.

¶56

The question then arising would be if the land should continue to be shown as Government puramboke or as Garden land in the name of the purchaser. I am not sure, if there would be a serious dispute that the petitioner, having purchased the property from the KFC under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, would obviously become the owner of the property for all intended purposes without any restriction except that the property can be used only for the uses that was permitted in Ext.P1. Viewed from that angle, Ext.P7 order can then easily be harmonized in its operation with Exts.P10 and P12. The Tahsildar and the Director of Industries while issuing Exts.P10 and P12, obviously meant that the property cannot be used for any purpose other than for an

¶57

W.P.(C)No.26445 of 2013 : 5 :

¶58

industrial one. This is more because, the area is stated to be now within the confines of the Athani Development area which is an industrial plot. The only question then would be whether the land should continue to be shown as Government puramboke or to be Garden land in the name of the petitioner. I fail to understand why there should be a discord on this account at all. Obviously, because the petitioner purchased the land as per Ext.P3, he should be shown as the owner and necessary corresponding entries should also be made in the records to show the land being a garden land. However, this does not mean that the petitioner can put the land for use except for the purposes shown in Ext.P1.

¶59

I see that a counter affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the third respondent, wherein, apart from the contentions that I have recorded above, he further asserts that the sale was conducted by the KFC without specific permission of the Government. I am not sure this should make any difference at all, because the mortgage, having been made by the original assignee

¶60

W.P.(C)No.26445 of 2013 : 6 :

¶61

with the sanction of the Government as recorded in Ext.P1, even assuming there is no specific sanction taken by the KFC for the sale, it would pose no detriment whatsoever to the rights of the purchaser. I say this also in the context that the KFC has filed an affidavit, wherein they maintain specifically that they have obtained permission of the Government before sale. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P11, which appears to be a letter that is addressed by the KFC to the Government, seeking permission. Even assuming that this letter was not specifically ordered by the Government, as has already been noticed by me above, it makes no difference to the right of the purchaser.

¶62

In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere in any manner with Ext.P7 order that has been issued by the 4^th respondent and it is necessary that the directions contained in that letter be harmoniously construed with the requirements projected in Exts.P10 and P12.

¶63

In such circumstances, I order this writ petition

¶64

W.P.(C)No.26445 of 2013 : 7 :

¶65

directing the 6^th respondent to effect appropriate changes for mutation of the land comprising Sy.No.14/53 in the name of the petitioner classifying it as a purayidom instead of Government puramboke in the name of the petitioner, but, specifying that the land can be used only for the manner as had been permitted in Ext.P1 patta. Obviously, on such orders being issued, the competent authority will also receive tax on the property and issue such other relevant receipts documents as are required by the petitioner. Since this writ petition has been pending here for the last more than 4 years, it is only appropriate that the 6^th respondent complete the exercise as aforementioned within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶66

Writ petition is ordered as above. I make no order as to costs. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶67

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶68

Bb/13/03/2017

¶69

[True copy] P.A to Judge

Teeson Treads Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teeson Treads Pvt.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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kozhuvanal Grama Panchayath Vs M.a.Jose

K.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Anr.

Beena Joseph Vs State Bank of India and Others

M.C.Pappan and Another Vs Secretary, Mundakayam Grama Panchayath

S.Balasubramanian Vs the Director General