Quashed

Sri Padmabalaji Alloys Pvt.Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2020WA/1398/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings resuming 7.85 acres of land allotted to the appellant. It held the order arbitrary as notice and proceeding were only for 4.85 additional acres, including the original 3 acres illegally. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with proper notice.

What did the court decide?

Reservation of legal department passed order quashing Ext.P13 proceedings and directing General Manager to reconsider matter after providing notice and opportunity of hearing.

Sri Padmabalaji Alloys Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9987/2018(W) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT:

¶10

SRI PADMABALAJI ALLOYS PVT.LTD. HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 308/1, NIDA, MENON PARA ROAD, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.RAVICHANDHIRAN, S/O. D.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, 30, 3RD CROSS, LAKSHMIPURAM, GANAPATHY, COIMBATORE-641006.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541.

¶15

3 THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PALAKKAD-678731.

¶16

4 THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD-678731.

¶17

5 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, TIRUPUR-641602.

¶18

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

6 ABDUL JABBAR M.M., S/O.MAKKAR PILLAI, MEZHUKKATTIL HOUSE, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683561.

¶21

7 ADDL.R7.HAMARA AAC BLOCKS AND AGGREGATES PVT.LTD., KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, STAISAN M.D., S/O. M.A. DAVY, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELEDATH HOUSE, CHEERACHI, OLLUR P.O., THIRSSUR.

¶22

(ADDITIONAL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2020 IN IA 2/2020 IN WA 1398/2020)

¶23

8 ADDL. R8. M/S.GREAT VALLEY PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD., DOOR NO.85, WARD 17, MAIN ROAD, CHEMMANKADAVU, KODUR P.O., MALAPPURAM -676504, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MUHAMMED FAVAS K.

¶24

(ADDITIONAL R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2020 IN IA 4/2020 IN WA 1398/2020)

¶25

R7 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM(SR) R7 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE R8 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW R8 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN THOMAS R8 BY ADV. SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN R8 BY ADV. SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL R8 BY ADV. SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA R8 BY ADV. SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL R8 BY ADV. SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE R8 BY ADV. SMT.NANDA SANAL R1 & R2 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2020, THE COURT ON 23-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

SHAJI P.CHALY,J

Captioned writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9987/2018 dated 13.8.2020, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with Ext.P13 proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palakkad dated 5.2.2017, whereby an extent of 7.85 acres of land allotted to the writ petitioner in the industrial area was resumed to the Government. It is thus challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment, this appeal is filed.

¶32

Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows; the proprietor of M/s. Padmabalaji Alloys Pvt.Ltd. viz., M.Ravichandran was allotted with an extent of 1 acre of land situate in Sy.No.308/1, 3, 4, 5 & 6/Pt. of Pudussery Central Village in accordance with the order of the Government regarding allotment of land and as per proceedings dated 22.12.2001 of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palakkad. Accordingly, an agreement was executed by and between the said person and the Government on 28.12.2001. While continuing so proprietor of the concern as per a letter dated 28.5.2002 submitted an application for the purpose of expansion of business by including two other persons as Directors

¶33

and to convert the proprietary concern to a private limited company.

¶34

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

Accordingly 1 acre of land each allotted to the said persons in Sy.No.308/1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 parts and Sy.No.308/part 8, 9 were requested to be joined to the property of the proprietary concern.

¶37

Apparently, on the basis of the application submitted by the company, the lands additionally allotted as specified above were allotted in favour of the appellant company and thereafter entered into a rectification agreement dated 2.7.2002m. Later the appellant company requested for allotment of 7.50 acres of land for expansion of the business and considering the said application, an extent of 4.85 acres of land was additionally allotted to the appellant in accordance with the agreement dated 15.7.2004. Evidently from Ext.P13, a show cause notice was issued to the Managing Director of the company as per letter dated 15.12.2006 by the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad stating that the 4.85 acres of land allotted to the appellant was found not used for a long period in the inspection conducted from the office and invited for a meeting. The appellant company requested for time, however, according to the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, no effective steps were taken for expansion of the business as promised under a letter dated 22.8.2006.

¶38

Thereupon as per notice dated 3.2.2010 explanation was sought for regarding the failure on the part of the appellant to use the additionally allotted 4.85 acres of land. It is discernible from Ext.P13 that as no activities were done in the additionally allotted property of 4.85 acres in the inspection conducted

¶39

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

and the land was resumed from the appellant as per proceedings dated 23.8.2012.

¶42

Being aggrieved, appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.358/2013, whereby it was directed to take appropriate steps after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thereafter, an order was passed on 11.6.2013 by the General Manager staying operation of the resumption proceedings and directed to produce project report for starting the new unit before the General Manager. Even though time was provided to the appellant, the project report was not submitted with details.

¶43

While as per report dated 19.3.2014 of the Industrial Development Officer, drawn as per the direction of the General Manager, it was found that 3 acres on the back side alone is required for a brick manufacturing unit and recommended for resumption of 4.85 acres of land additionally allotted. It seems again a report was submitted by the Sub District Officer on 9.5.2017 by which it was reported that no unit was started in the additionally allotted land and even first allotted unit itself has stopped working in 2015. Therefore, it was recommended that the 4.85 acres of land additionally allotted is to be resumed, and further stated that the factory is not working and the machineries in the factory are seen removed and useless.

¶44

Circumstances being so, the appellant was invited for a meeting on 19.7.2017 as per letter dated 7.7.2017. But the appellant did not appear and

¶45

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶46

¶47

according to the General Manager, though an opportunity was given to appear on 20.9.2017, appellant did not appear. It was accordingly that the entire extent of 7.85 acres of land was ordered to be resumed to the Government and further directed the Estate Officer to take possession of the properties. It was under the aforesaid circumstances challenging the resumption order appellant filed the writ petition leading to this appeal.

¶48

The learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions dismissed the writ petition relying upon the common judgment dated 14.3.2019 (Writ petition numbers not mentioned) holding that, point decided in the batch of writ petitions as said above applies to the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant but directed that if the appellant had put up any construction in the property in question, the value of the same shall be calculated in terms of Rule 18 of the Kerala Allotment of Land in Development Areas on Hire Purchase For Industrial Purpose Rules, 1969 and the right of the 5^th respondent to realise amounts due from the appellant was left open.

¶49

We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant Sri.Joseph Markose, assisted by Adv.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, learned Government Pleader Sri.S.Kannan and learned Senior Counsel Sri.George Poothottam & Sri.Santhosh Mathew appearing for additional respondents 7 & 8 respectively and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶50

On a reading of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, what we

¶51

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

could gather was that the learned Single Judge did not consider the writ petition on its merit. This we say because it is clearly specified in the judgment that the facts and circumstances involved in the case is similar to the common judgment rendered on 14.3.2019. The fact remains, from Ext.P13 impugned order passed by the General Manager of District Industries Centre, Palakkad, it is clear that notice was issued only for the resumption of 4.85 acres of land additionally allotted to the appellant company.

¶54

True, in the report submitted by the Industrial Officers of the District Industries Centre it was reported that the land originally allotted was not utilised and the machineries in the factory are removed and useless. It is also true that in spite of the attempt of the General Manager, the appellant company did not attend the meeting arranged by the District Industries Centre. However, the appellant was never put on notice for resumption of the originally allotted land of 3 acres. But the order was passed by the General Manager resuming 7.85 acres in Sy.No.307/1, 308/1 & 309/1 of Pudussery Central Village, Palakkad District and directed the Estate Officer to take possession of the properties, which includes a factory building and machineries, if any. While the appeal was pending, we were informed that the land so resumed was allotted to four other persons including additional respondents 7 & 8 and money was received from such allottees. Apparently on the basis of the said development alone, respondents 7 & 8 sought to implead in the writ appeal.

¶55

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶56

¶57

On appreciation of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that Ext.P13 proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palakkad dated 5.10.2017 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality in the matter of resumption of the entire extent of 7.85 acres while the notice issued and the proceedings initiated only against 4.85 acres of additionally allotted land. If at all the resumption can be made, it can be only against the additionally allotted extent of 4.85 acres. Even assuming that the opportunity given to the appellant was not made use of, the action of the General Manager resuming the entire extent of land cannot be legally sustained for violative of the principles of natural justice. It is by now trite and settled that every action of a state and statutory authorities in order to survive and have the force of law shall not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the essence and vitality of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a basic and foundational aspect in order to protect the rule of law prevailing in the country . Which thus means every executive action shall be exercised in a fair, proper, just and reasonable way so as to achieve and maintain the constitutional goals and purposes. Therefore if and when any such infirmity is brought to the notice of a writ court, it is the bounden duty of the writ court to rectify the same appropriately .

¶58

This we say because in the report of the Industrial Development Officer dated 19.3.2014, it was reported that the 3 acres on the back side alone is required for the brick manufacturing unit and the balance extent can

¶59

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶60

¶61

be resumed. But as per report dated 9.5.2017 alone, the Palakkad Sub District Officer reported that the factory was not working and the machineries in the factory are seen removed and useless. If at all the General Manager had the intention to resume the originally allotted land of 3 acres of the appellant company, definitely a resumption notice should have been issued and secured explanation from the appellant.

¶62

So far as the property additionally allotted is concerned, proceedings were complied with observing the principles of natural justice. But fact remains the entire extent of 7.85 acres is now allotted to four different persons and therefore, we cannot segregate the issue and direct the General Manager to consider the case of the originally allotted land alone. This we say because the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the lands allotted to the 4 persons overlap the 3 acres of land originally allotted to the appellant.

¶63

Bearing the entire aspects, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that the resumption of 3 acres originally allotted was bad, being arbitrary and illegal. But for the reasons said above, we are constrained to set aside Ext.P13 proceedings as such, failing which there can be complexities in deciding the issue. At that point of time respective counsel appearing for additional respondents 7 & 8 submitted that their interest may be protected in the matter of preference of allotment of land in accordance with the seniority. We find force in the said contention.

¶64

WA.No.1398 OF 2020

¶65

¶66

Upshot of the above discussion is that Ext.P13 proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palakkad dated 5.10.2017 is herewith quashed and direct the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palakkad to re-consider the matter, after providing necessary notice in accordance with law and attain finality to the same, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. We also make it clear that the seniority of the allottees viz., respondents 7 & 8 and two others against the properties in question shall be maintained till such time a decision is taken as directed above.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

Sri Padmabalaji Alloys Pvt.Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Padmabalaji Alloys Pvt.Ltd. v. the 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

Alexander Correya Vs John Bosco

M/S. Everest Stone Crusher and Granites, Vs the District Collector

Mohana K. Vs the State of Kerala

Muppainad Grama Panchayath Vs M.P.Kuriakose

Pouravakasha Samrakshana Council Vs Union of India

Chennat Constructions Vs the Director