Dismissed

Greater Cochin Development Authority v. [email protected]

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019WA/1436/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment affirmed the direction granting 59.50 sq. m. of land to a respondent couple under the Chief Minister's Janasamparkka Programme. The court held that the petitioner's father's existing property did not disqualify him as he was considered landless himself and other legal heirs existed.

What did the court decide?

Consequential direction to complete the process of allotment of land to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner within three weeks.

Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs Roy.M.D@Job.M.D — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019/27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

W.A.No.1436 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.2019 IN R.P.NO.176/2019 IN W.P.(C).NO.28973/2018 of HIGH COURT

¶7

APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

1.GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GCDA, KOCHI 682020.

¶9

2.SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KOCHI, 682020.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE SHRI.SANJEEV G.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1.ROY.M.D @ JOB.M.D S/O.MM DAVID, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUZHANGATHARA HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI 36, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAMELY LALY ROY, W/O.ROY.M.D. @ JOB M.D., RESIDING AT MUZHANGATHARA HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI 36.

¶13

2.M.R.JACOB MUNNUKOOTTUMGAL HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682020.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.J.JULIAN ZAVIER

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.A.NO.1436/2019 : 2 :

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶19

This appeal is filed by the Greater Cochin Development Authority [GCDA] and their Secretary, to challenge the order dated 11.3.2019 in the R.P.No.176/2019. This Review Petition was filed by the GCDA, against the judgment dated 1.11.2018 in the W.P.(C).No.28973/2018.

¶20

The matter pertains to plea for allotment of land at Elamkulam Village [Panampilly Nagar], under the Chief Minister's Janasamparkka Programme to the couple M.D.Roy and his wife Smt.Laly Roy, who were in occupation of total 1.5 cents land in the Sy.No.906/1 of the said Village. The Executive Committee of the GCDA took a decision on 21.5.2013 [Ext.P5] to allot land measuring 1.5 cents to one Sri.Francis E.J. and Smt.Laly Roy, under the Chief Minister's Janasamparkka Programme. Another decision was taken on 27.10.2014 [Ext.P6] where under, the GCDA had decided to allot 23.22 sq. m. of land to M.D.Roy, the husband of the other allottee – Smt.Laly Roy. This created some confusion, but this was resolved through the communication dated 10.12.2014 [Ext.P7] from the Secretary of the GCDA to the District Collector, Ernakulam. It was clarified in the Ext.P7 communication that M.D.Roy is being allotted 23.22 sq. m. land out of the 59.50 sq. m. property in his occupation, and the remaining 26.28 sq. m. property is to be allotted in the name of his wife Smt.Laly Roy, under the Chief Minister's

¶21

W.A.NO.1436/2019 : 3 :

¶22

Janasamparkka Programme, which is intended to allot land, for the landless category. The Ext.P7 communication clearly reflects that the total land to be allotted to the couple measures 1.5 cents, and this is the area which was under occupation of the couple.

¶23

The learned Judge, in her judgment dated 1.11.2018 in the W.P.(C).No.28973/2018, had issued direction to the GCDA authorities to take steps for allotment of 59.50 sq. m. property, as decided in Ext.P6, to the writ petitioner M.D.Roy. While issuing such direction, the learned Judge, in fact, had relied on Exts.P5, P6 and P7, but inadvertantly had referred to only the Ext.P6, while issuing the final direction in the W.P.(C).No.28973/2018. It is also seen from the judgment that the learned Judge had also adverted to the Ext.P16 report relied on by the GCDA, to show that the petitioner had an interest in other land. The Ext.P16 report itself was at a later point of time after the decision was already taken by the GCDA to allot land to the petitioner, and accordingly, the learned Judge found that the Ext.P16 report cannot be relied upon to deny the benefit of allotment to the writ petitioner M.D.Roy.

¶24

Thus aggrieved, the R.P.No.176/2019 was filed by the GCDA, pointing out the difference in the area of land in Exts.P6 and P7, and seeking clarification in respect of the allotment to be made to the landless couple. After due application, the learned Judge had issued direction to allot, in all, 59.50 sq. m. [1.5 cents] land to the writ petitioner M.D.Roy.

¶25

W.A.NO.1436/2019 : 4 :

¶26

The above direction is challenged by the GCDA, with the contention that the writ petitioner's father M.M.David has certain property in the Village, and therefore, the petitioner has an interest in such property.

¶27

Responding to the above, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner Sri.J.Julian Zavier submits that the property in question is registered in the name of the father Sri.M.M.David, of the writ petitioner, and he is still alive. Besides, there are other legal heirs in the event the father passes away. However, presently, the petitioner or his wife do not own any property and must be treated as “landless” category. He then submits that wife is not claiming any separate land for herself and the allotment can be in the name of her husband M.D.Roy, who is the writ petitioner.

¶28

The rival submissions are considered. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge on the point that any property acquired subsequent to the decision to allot the land to the occupier, under the Chief Minister's Janasamparkka Programme, cannot be the basis to deviate from the earlier decision to allot the land. Besides, the land in the name of the father of M.D.Roy, cannot be treated as a land on which, the writ petitioner M.D.Roy has an interest, since the father is still alive and there is no transfer of ownership and there are other legal heirs also, in respect of the said property.

¶29

It is also noticed from the communication dated 10.12.2014 [Ext.P7] of the GCDA that, only 59.50 sq. m. property under occupation of the landless couple

¶30

W.A.NO.1436/2019 : 5 :

¶31

is to be allotted and this appears to be consistent with the Chief Minister's Janasamparkka Programme. We therefore affirm the judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge in the W.P.(C).No.28973/2018 and in the R.P.No.176/2019, and dismiss the Writ Appeal. There shall be a consequential direction to complete the process of allotment of land to the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner, within three weeks from today.

¶32

The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶36

prp/17/6/19

¶37

W.A.NO.1436/2019 : 6 :

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶42

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.1.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶43

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE

¶44

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO 59/2013-14 DATED 21.3.2013

¶45

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO 214/2014-15 DATED 27.10.2014 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE GCDA WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND

¶46

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DATED 10.12.2014

¶47

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR ERNAKULAM TO VILLAGE OFFICER ELAMKULAM DATED 13.1.2015

¶48

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO 173/15 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE TO THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNOOR TALUK

¶49

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.2.2015

¶50

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 12.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶51

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.4.2015 IN WPC NO 10240/2015 WP(C) NO.28973 OF 2018

¶52

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION NO 303/2016 IN WPC NO.10240/2015

¶53

EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.11.2017 IN WPC NO.25249/2015

¶54

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.3.2018 IN WA NO 2482/2017 IN WPC NO.25249/2015

¶55

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE REPORT DATED 18.6.2018 RECEIVED UNDER

¶56

W.A.NO.1436/2019 : 7 :

¶57

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶58

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶59

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶60

ANNEXURE-R1(A) ORIGINAL OF THE NOC.

¶61

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.11.2011.

¶62

EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT ENQUIRY NO.A3/41/2015-16 DATED 24.4.2017.

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

P.S. TO JUDGE

Greater Cochin Development Authority v. [email protected]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greater Cochin Development Authority v. [email protected]

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

The AtUTHORISED Officer, Vs Subhadra

P.Muraleedharan Vs Union of India

Kerala University of Health Sciences Vs Muhammad Habeeb Rahiman K T

Dinesh Kumar v.P., Vs Union of India

Reshma Majeed Vs Shameer Babu Mulakkal

Kottakkaparambil Mulamkunnathu Sree Bhagavathy Kshethram Trust Vs Mudakkuzha Grama Panchayat