High Court Kerala High Court

K.Thomas Varghese vs State Of Kerala And 4 Others on 3 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Thomas Varghese vs State Of Kerala And 4 Others on 3 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 140 of 2010()



1. K.THOMAS VARGHESE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA AND 4 OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :03/02/2010

 O R D E R
      K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

                  ------------------------------
                       W.A.No.140/2010
                  ------------------------------

               Dated this, the 3rd day of February, 2010


                           JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was allotted two

sheds in an industrial estate in Changanacherry. He did not

remit the rent in time. So, proceedings were initiated to evict

him. Finally, the matter was settled between the parties, with

the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited

(for short “SIDCO”) offering to sell the property to the appellant.

Initially, the SIDCO fixed the price as Rs.14,04,738/-, as per

Ext.P3. The appellant complained. Taking into account the

various factors, the SIDCO re-fixed the price as Rs.5,06,527/-,

as per Ext.P4. Dissatisfied with the conditions contained in

Ext.P4, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge

took the view that the claim of the appellant is irrational. It was

found that the price was reasonable, having regard to the extent

WA No.140/2010

– 2 –

of land allotted. In that view, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Hence this appeal.

2. If the appellant is not satisfied with the conditions in

Ext.P4, he need not take the land. We find that it is a

commercial transaction between the seller and the buyer.

Because of the policy of the Government to promote industries,

he is being allotted the land at a very reasonable rate.

Therefore, we find no reason to entertain the grievance raised

by the appellant against the terms of allotment. Accordingly,

we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.

P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.

nm.