Disposed

T. Venugopal v. Kadakkarapally Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC8 Nov 2022WP(C)/24846/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner owned land allotted by SIDCO on outright purchase with a building in the previous allottee's name. Court directed respondents to decide the pending transfer application fairly, considering the purchase nature of the allotment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide the petitioner's application for transfer of ownership of the building after giving opportunity of hearing.

T. Venugopal Vs Kadakkarapally Grama Panchayat — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24846 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T. VENUGOPAL, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN,
PROPRIETOR, M/S. ARJUN MOTORS,
MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KADAKKARAPALLY P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 529,
RESIDING AT PUNNACKEL VELIYIL,
KADAKKARAPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688529

¶8

BY ADVS.
B.PRAMOD
ASWATHI SURESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KADAKKARAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAKKARAPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688529

¶11

2THE SECRETARY
KADAKKARAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KADAKKARAPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688529
3THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SIDCO
P.B. NO. 50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶12

BY ADVS.
BRIJESH MOHAN
BIJU G., SC, SIDCO
R.RAJPRADEEP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C) No.24846 of 2022

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2022

¶18

The petitioner is running a Motor Vehicle Body Building Unit in 4.94 Cents of land in Kadakkarapally Village of Cherthala Taluk. The land was allotted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the 3^rd respondent- Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO). By Ext.P1, sanction was accorded for allotment of 4.94 Cents of vacant land with a building on outright purchase basis, to the petitioner.

¶19

Ext.P1 allotment was in the year 2009. The petitioner executed Ext.P2 agreement with the 3^rd respondentSIDCO. The petitioner later submitted Ext.P9 application seeking to transfer the ownership of the building to his name. The existing ownership of the building is in the name of the previous allottee.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that when he approached respondents 1 and 2 for transfer of ownership of

¶21

¶22

WP(C) No.24846 of 2022

¶23

the building, respondents 1 and 2 stated that he has to

¶24

produce valid title deed in respect of the property to effect transfer of ownership.

¶25

The petitioner states that the property was allotted to him by a Government owned Company on outright purchase basis. The petitioner obtained ownership of the building as per Ext.P1 allotment order and Ext.P2 agreement. The right, title and possession of the building vest with the petitioner by virtue of a legal allotment and agreement though there are certain conditions attached to allotment, contends the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 will not therefore be justified in refusing transfer of ownership of the building thereon in the name of the petitioner.

¶26

Standing Counsel representing the 3^rd respondentSIDCO submits that a larger extent of land in this area was given by the Government to the SIDCO for the purpose of allotment for industrial units. The Government has not issued Patta in the name of the SIDCO. Nevertheless, keeping in mind the objective of the Company, for industrial

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.24846 of 2022

¶29

development, plots were allotted to eligible persons. The

¶30

petitioner came into possession of the property when the land was resumed by the SIDCO from the previous owner and was allotted to the petitioner.

¶31

The Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondentPanchayat would submit that as per the Rules governing transfer of ownership of buildings, a person applying for transfer of ownership shall produce sufficient materials to establish his title. Apart from the allotment letter and Ext.P2 agreement, the petitioner has not produced any documents. At any rate, the application is pending consideration and respondents 1 and 2 would be considering the application in due course of time.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3.

¶33

The fact remains that 4.94 Cents of land was allotted by the 3^rd respondent-SIDCO to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 allotment letter. Ext.P1 allotment letter as well as the

¶34

¶35

WP(C) No.24846 of 2022

¶36

terms contained in Ext.P2 agreement would show that the assignment was by way of outright purchase, though the outright purchase is subject to certain conditions stipulated in the agreement. In the case of the petitioner, there is no allegation that he has violated any condition in the agreement. It is submitted at the Bar that the buildings in the lands allotted by the 3^rd respondent to eligible industrial units, stand in the name of respective owners of the land. Even the ownership of the building now held by the petitioner was in the name of the previous allottee. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that picking the petitioner alone for a discriminatory

¶37

treatment by denying change of ownership of the building, may not stand the scrutiny of law.

¶38

This Court finds that since the application of the petitioner is still pending consideration before respondents 1 and 2, they can take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner, taking into consideration all relevant facts including the fact that the assignment of the land to the petitioner is by way of outright purchase and the further fact

¶39

¶40

WP(C) No.24846 of 2022

¶41

that in other similarly situated cases in the industrial area, buildings are in the ownership of respective allottees even as

¶42

per the records maintained by respondents 2 and 3. A

¶43

decision on Ext.P9 shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that transfer of the building in the Municipal Records in favour of the petitioner shall not in any manner affect the claim of any of the parties for compensation amount in respect of land acquisition for the National Highway Project, which issue is left open.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.24846 of 2022

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24846/2022

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY 3RD`	`ORDER DATED 23.12.2009` `RESPONDENT TO THE`
	`PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `08.10.2010` `EXE` `PETITIONER AND THE`	`THE AGREEMENT DATED` `CUTED` `BETWEEN` `THE` `3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE` `3RD RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED 08.07.2021` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD`	`LETTER DATED 22.09.2021` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `17.05.2022 ISSUED` `TO THE PETITIONER`	`THE RECEIPT DATED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P6`	`RUE COPY OF THE L` `ISSUED TO THE 3RD`	`ETTER DATED 01.07.2022` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `27.10.2007 PASSED` `IN THAT REGARD`	`RESUMPTION ORDER DATED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SPECIAL TAHASIL` `COMPETENT AUTHORI` `THE COMPENSATION,`	`NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `DAR LA (NH), THE` `TY FOR DISBURSEMENT OF` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `21.07.2022 SUBMITT`	`SAID APPLICATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 26.07.2022` `OF THE 1ST RESPOND`	`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT` `ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE` `ENT`
`RESPONDENT EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit R2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF TH`	`E LAND RELINGUISHMENT`
	`FROM` `BY` `WHIC`	`H` `THE` `RESPONDENTS`
	`SURRENDERED` `LA` `SY.NO.49/29.`	`ND` `TO` `GOVERNMENT`
`Exhibit R2(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `BUILDING NO.6/256` `SOFTWARE"`	`ASSESSMENT DETAILS OF` `TAKEN FROM "SANCHAYA`
`Exhibit R2(c)`	`COPY OF LETTER G` `BY THIS RESPONDENT`	`IVEN TO THE PETITIONER` `DATED 27/07/2022.`

T. Venugopal v. Kadakkarapally Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Venugopal v. Kadakkarapally Grama Panchayat

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

Muhammed Haneefa Vs the Village Officer

J.R.Chandrika Kumari, Vs State of Kerala

Smt. Maria Fagi Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Shaji N.R Vs Sri. A.M. Naisam

M/S. C.I. Constructions Vs Ajit Kumar IAS

Jayalakshmi.K., Vs State of Kerala