Disposed

Molecular Multispeciality Hospital v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2018WP(C)/31480/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in deciding an assignment application for Government puramboke land of 6 cents, situated within the petitioner's larger hospital property. The Court directed the State Government to consider the petitioner's public interest plea regarding hospital functioning, provide a hearing opportunity, and record comprehensive written submissions before taking a final d

What did the court decide?

Ordered that the Competent Authority consider the public interest plea, afford hearing, review reports, and take a final decision on assignment within three months.

Molecular Multispeciality Hospital Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 31480 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MOLECULAR MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL PUTHUVYPE VYPPIN ERNAKULAM KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.AJITH JOY .K

¶8

BY ADV. SHYLAJA V.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANATHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶11

2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695003.

¶12

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶13

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.M.R.DHANIL,GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.31480/2018

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

W.P.(C)No.31480 of 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The prayer in the above Writ Petition(Civil)

¶23

is as follows:

¶24

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to pass orders on the assignment application filed by the petitioner, Ext.P1 and P2 respectively, after considering Ext.P3 report and without further report as sought for in Ext.P8 by the Land Revenue Commissioner within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶25

2. Heard Sri. V. shylaja, the learned

¶26

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.R. Dhanil, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶27

3. The petitioner Company has established a Multispeciality Hospital in Puthuvype, Vypin, Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, they had purchased an extent of 1.35 Acres of landed property in Survey No.167/8,10-11 and 166/2 of Puthuvype Village, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue District and also constructed a big building for establishing a multispeciality

¶28

W.P.(C)No.31480/2018

¶29

¶30

hospital after securing all necessary permissions from the statutory authorities and after investing more than Rs.75 crores. Later, the revenue officials concerned reported that about 6 cents of

¶31

the property, which is situated in the middle of the larger extent of the property of the petitioner is Government puramboke land and that proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner etc. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application dated 9.6.2017 and Ext.P4(a)letter dated 27.6.2017 before the 3^rd respondent District Collector seeking for orders of assignment of the said land on market value basis, as the said alleged puramboke property of 6

¶32

cents is situated in the middle of the larger extent of the petitioner's land and as the huge building has already been constructed by the petitioner over the land which is also inclusive of the alleged 6 cents of puramboke land. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that none will be benefited if the building is also forced to be demolished, only for the sake of

¶33

W.P.(C)No.31480/2018

¶34

¶35

recovery of the said 6 cents of alleged puramboke

¶36

land out of the larger extent of 1.35 Acres of land and that only public interest will be subserved, if the Mutispeciality Hospital is allowed to function without any such hindrances and that the petitioner is prepared to pay market value for assignment of the said land. From the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that the matter has been considered as various levels and various inter-officials communications have been produced. Various queries and clarifications sought for by the 2^nd respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue has also been responded to by the 3^rd respondent District Collector as per Exts.P5 and P7 etc. Accordingly, the petitioner would submit that there should not be any further delay and that this Court may direct the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government to take a considered decision on the request made by the petitioner for assignment of 6 cents of land in view of the grounds of beneficial enjoyment and public interest involved in the matter.

¶37

W.P.(C)No.31480/2018

¶38

¶39

4. The 2^nd respondent Commissioner for Land

¶40

Revenue has now filed a statement dated 3.10.2018 through the learned Government Pleader and has also produced therewith a copy of the letter dated 5.10.2018 addressed to the 1^st respondent State Government as Annexure-R2(a) thereto. A perusal of the copy of Annexure-R2(a) would disclose that the 2^nd respondent has forwarded the matter to the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government for their considered final decision in the matter. The petitioner would urge that going by the peculiar nature of facts and circumstances of this case, as the alleged puramboke property of 6 cents is situated in the middle of the larger

¶41

extent of property and as huge building for hospital complex has already been constructed on the land which is also inclusive of the said 6

¶42

cents of land, only public interest will be subserved by assignment of the said land to the petitioner, so as to effectuate the proper functioning of the Multispeciality hospital to serve public good and that such assignment of land

¶43

W.P.(C)No.31480/2018

¶44

¶45

for effectuation of the functioning of

¶46

Multispeciality Hospital caters to the public at large would also be only one for advancement of public interest. Such specific contention of the petitioner should also be duly considered by the 1^st respondent. Accordingly, it is ordered that the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and copies of all the reports so far obtained by them should also be given in advance to the petitioner in order to equip the petitioner to advance their contentions and submissions in the matter and the petitioner should also be permitted to submit

¶47

comprehensive written submissions in the matter and thereafter reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner will be afforded and then

¶48

the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government will take a considered final decision in the matter. The above said specific contention of the petitioner regarding advancement of public interest in the facts and circumstances

¶49

W.P.(C)No.31480/2018

¶50

¶51

of this case should be duly considered and adverted to by the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government. The considered final decision in the matter should be rendered by the 1^st respondent State Government without much delay preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶52

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(C)No.31480/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DAED 06/06/2013 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 1055 M2 OF GROUND FLOOR.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION FROM CHIEF TOWN PLANER DATED 24/08/2015 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIX MORE FLOORS.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 15/10/2016 OF THE TAHSILDAR.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09/06/2017.
EXHIBIT P4 A	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/06/2017 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ADDRESSED OT THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 24/07/2017.
EXHIBIT P5 A	TRUE COY OF THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 24/05/2017.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE ASSISTANT LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 24/08/2017.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/06/2018 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/08/2018 OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.

¶61

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶62

ANNEXURE-R2(a): TRUE COPY OF LR.NO.LR(J)7-40349/17 DATED 5.10.2018.

¶63

TRUE COPY

¶64

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Molecular Multispeciality Hospital v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Molecular Multispeciality Hospital 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

E.Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Valsala Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Ashakumar Vs State of Kerala

Sivadas V.C Vs the District Collector, Idukki

Pallikkathody Madhavi Vs the Union of India

Sumathy, Vs the District Collector