Dismissed

Martina Jose v. the General Manager, District Industries Centre

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022WP(C)/16037/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction order against a woman entrepreneur running a cement brick unit in a welfare plot. The court held eviction justified due to violation of agreement clauses prohibiting unauthorized construction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and dismissed; eviction order confirmed; no interference granted.

Martina Jose Vs the General Manager, District Industries Centre — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16037 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MARTINA JOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. JOSE, PYNADATHU HOUSE, KIDANGOOR NORTH, KIDANGOOR P.O., ANKAMALY, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 572, PROPRIETRIX OF R.R. CEMENT BRICKS.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH SRI.SABIR N.S.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD P.O., PIN – 682030

¶10

2 ANKAMALY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ANKAMALY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, ANKAMALY P.O., ALUVA TALUK, ERAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 572.

¶11

3 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ANKAMALY P.O., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 572.

¶12

4 THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD, BLOCK PANCHAYATH, MINI CIVIL STATION, ANKAMALY P.O., ANKAMALY, PIN – 683572

¶13

BY SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.16037/2022

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.16037 of 2022

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2022

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶23

The petitioner, who was allotted a plot in the Women Industrial Development Centre (Vanitha Vyavasaya Kendram) within Angamaly Block Panchayat, is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order of the Block Development Officer directing the petitioner to stop her Industrial Unit and to vacate the premises.

¶24

In the year 2011, the petitioner was allotted 1065 square feet land and building, in the Vanitha Vyavasaya Kendram. The petitioner started a Cement Brick manufacturing unit there. Subsequently, the petitioner was allotted 1000 square feet additional space. The petitioner states that till the advent of Covid-19 pandemic, the unit was

WP(C) No.16037/2022

: 3 :

running smoothly.

While so, for effective running of the Unit, the petitioner constructed additional shed in the premises at own expense. This, the petitioner states, is on the oral permission given by the Block Panchayat Committee. However, the Secretary to the Block Panchayat issued Ext.P4 show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply. The petitioner also paid ₹90,000/- towards rent arrears. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for regularisation of the construction.

¶29

The petitioner states that at the instance of a third party, without considering Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner, the Block Development Officer has passed Ext.P9 order directing the petitioner to close down the Unit and vacate the premises. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner holds UDYAM registration. Industrial space was allotted to the petitioner in order to encourage a woman entrepreneur. The petitioner is running the industrial unit facing all odds. The petitioner is ready and

¶30

WP(C) No.16037/2022

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

willing to clear all rent arrears, if any outstanding.

¶33

The additional shed was constructed with the

¶34

implied permission of the Block Development Committee. The petitioner has submitted an application for regularisation of the shed construction. If the petitioner is evicted before consideration of her application, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss. The petitioner is willing to dismantle and remove the shed. Eviction of the petitioner is not only unwarranted but it is also based on extraneous considerations, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

The 3^rd respondent contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The Senior Government Pleader representing the 3^rd respondent stated that the relationship between the Panchayat and the petitioner is governed by Ext.P3 agreement and guidelines governing the spending of plan funds. Admittedly, the petitioner has carried out constructions in the premises without any sanction from the Panchayat, in clear violation of Clauses 6 and 10 of Ext.P3 agreement. Having violated the terms on which she was

¶36

WP(C) No.16037/2022

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

granted permission to occupy the Panchayat's premises, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that she has any manner of right in law or in equity to continue her occupation. The petitioner initially denied having made any construction illegally. Later, she has filed an application for regularisation.

¶39

Being custodian of public property, the 3^rd respondent is not in a position to entertain the petitioner's application.

¶40

The Vanitha Vyvasaya Kendram in question is constructed using plan funds. It is meant to provide infrastructural support to Self Help Groups, Kudumbasree Units or Women Entrepreneurs registered with the Department of Industries. It is intended to provide meaningful support to women entrepreneurs. The petitioner was granted permission to run the unit from 06.12.2011 for a period of 11 months, the term of which permission was renewed from time to time.

¶41

Complaints were received regarding the illegal construction within the premises of the Panchayat. The Panchayat constituted a sub-committee to enquire into the

¶42

WP(C) No.16037/2022

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

allegations, by its decision 29.10.2021. The Committee found that the petitioner has carried out unauthorised constructions and has accommodated various persons in the premises including for night stay. These were without the sanction of the Panchayat. Ext.R3(a) is only one among the several complaints. Ext.R3(b) confirms that two structures of permanent nature and three temporary structures were erected by the petitioner. Although the petitioner originally denied making any impermissible construction, later she filed an application to regularise the same. It shows lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner.

¶45

Heard.

¶46

The petitioner was allotted a space for running an industrial unit in the Vanitha Vyavasaya Kendram of the Block Panchayat. The petitioner was allotted additional space also to run the industrial unit. The contractual relationship is based on Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 agreements. Clause 5 of Ext.P3 agreement mandates that the petitioner is not entitled to exchange the land and the building. Clause 6 states that the

¶47

WP(C) No.16037/2022

¶48

: 7 :

¶49

right to make any addition to the existing building is with the Block Panchayat alone.

¶50

On receiving complaints about the misuse of the space allotted to the petitioner, the Block Panchayat constituted a Sub Committee. The Sub Committee found that the petitioner has made unauthorised constructions. The Sub Committee also found that the petitioner has accommodated various persons in the premises for night stay. The counsel for the petitioner would state that only migrant workers employed in the industry were permitted to stay in the premises.

¶51

The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner originally denied the making of additional construction without permission and later submitted application for regularisation of the construction. It may be noted that the petitioner has not made additional construction in a land owned by the petitioner. Additional construction has been made in government land and that too without prior permission.

¶52

WP(C) No.16037/2022

¶53

: 8 :

¶54

Ext.P3 agreement has a specific clause that the

¶55

right to make any addition to the buildings in the premises vests only with the Block Panchayat. Therefore, even an application for regularisation of additional construction unauthorisedly made by the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner has evidently violated the conditions in the agreements based on which she occupied the premises. This Court therefore does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order.

¶56

The writ petition therefore fails and it is consequently dismissed.

¶57

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/17.08.2022

WP(C) No.16037/2022

: 9 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16037/2022

¶62

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶63

Exhibit P1	TRUE THE FAVOU	COPY OF THE PETITIONER R OF THE 2ND	AGREEMENT EXECU DATED 06-12-20 RESPONDENT	TED BY 11 IN
Exhibit P2	TRUE COMMI DATED	COPY OF T TTEE MEETING 27-08-2021	HE MINUTES O OF THE 2ND RESP	F THE ONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE THE FAVOU	COPY OF THE PETITIONER R OF THE 2ND	AGREEMENT EXECU DATED 31-08-20 RESPONDENT	TED BY 21 IN
Exhibit P4	TRUE 2021 THE P	COPY OF THE ISSUED BY T ETITIONER	NOTICE DATED HE 2ND RESPOND	18-11- ENT TO
Exhibit P5	TRUE BLOCK 2021	COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT BY THE PETITI	REPLY ISSUED OFFICER DATED ONER	TO THE 08-12-
Exhibit P6	TRUE 2ND R	COPY OF THE ESPONDENT TO	RECEIPT ISSUED THE PETITIONER	BY THE
Exhibit P7	TRUE REGUL DATED	COPY OF ARIZATION SU 09-02-2022.	THE APPLICATIO BMITTED BY PETI	N FOR TIONER
Exhibit P8	TRUE REGIS 2022	COPY OF THE TRATION CERT .	UDYAM -KL-02-0 IFICATE DATED	032920 21-03-
Exhibit P9	TRUE	COPY OF THE	EVICTION ORDER	DATED
	28-04 RESPO	-2022 ISSU NDENT.	ED BY THE	3RD
Exhibit P10	TRUE 31.05 BEFOR	COPY OF TH .2022 SUBMIT E THE 2ND R	E APPLICATION TED BY THE PETI ESPONDENT FOR R	DATED TIONER ENEWAL
	OF TH UNIT.	ELICENSE FOR	THE RR CEMENT	BRICK

¶64

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT R3(a) EXHIBIT R3(b)	TRUE 2021 TRUE COMMI PANCH	COPY COPY TTEE AYATH	OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20-09- OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB CONSTITUTED BY THE BLOCK

¶66

WP(C) No.16037/2022

¶67

: 10 :

¶68

EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16-02-2022 EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22-02-2022 EXHIBIT R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHOWING THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE REPORT EXHIBIT R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 27-05-2022 EXHIBIT R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31-05-2022 EXHIBIT R3(h) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYATH DATED 07-06-2022

¶69

Martina Jose v. the General Manager, District Industries Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martina Jose v. the General Manager, District Industries Centre

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

Deepak Chandran Vs Birth and Death Registrar

Husain. M Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality

Haskar.M Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality

S.Umesh Shenoy Vs the Tripunithura Municipality

Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Jeevan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer