IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 38005 of 2001(Y)
1. B.PRASANNAKUMARI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.MANHU, SC, SIDCO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/01/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 38005 of 2001
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 12th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an entrepreneur, who is running a small
scale industrial unit in the name and style “M/s. Gangothri
Industries.” For the purpose of the said industrial unit, the petitioner
applied to the 2nd respondent for allotment of a piece of land in the
Cherthala Industrial Estate of the SIDCO. The petitioner paid Rs.
4000/- as application fee as evidenced by Ext. P2. According to the
petitioner, as per the understanding between the petitioner and the
2nd respondent, 2nd respondent had agreed to allot the land for a land
value of Rs. 18,000/- per cent. But, contrary to that understanding,
when, by Ext. P3, allotment was made, the petitioner was required to
pay provisional cost of Rs. 3,03,898/- at the rate of Rs. 27,329/- per
cent for 11.12 cents. As per the allotment order, the petitioner was
required to pay the cost of the property as stipulated in the said
order. On receipt of Ext. P3, the petitioner issued Ext. P4 to the
General Manager of SIDCO contending that the agreed land value
was Rs. 18,000/- per cent and therefore, the land value may be
reduced accordingly. By Ext. P5 letter dated 6-8-2001, the petitioner
was informed by the General Manager that the cost of the land fixed
cannot be reduced and directed the petitioner to remit 30% of the
provisional cost as initial payment and the balance in 36 monthly
instalments with interest as per the Rules. The petitioner again
disputed the land value by filing Ext. P6 letter dated 24-8-2001. On
receipt of the same, by Ext. P7 order dated 13-11-2001, the General
Manager cancelled the allotment on the ground that the petitioner has
not complied with the conditions of the allotment within the stipulated
time. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P7 order.
2. According to the petitioner, the agreed value of the land was
Rs. 18,000/- per cent and therefore it was unreasonable on the part of
O.P. No. 38005/01 -: 2 :-
the 2nd respondent to enhance the same to Rs. 27,329/- per cent. The
petitioner would contend that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
get allotment of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per cent.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd
respondent stating that there was no agreement for allotment of the
land at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per cent as contended by the
petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was offered the land for
a provisional value of Rs. 3,03,898/- at the rate of Rs. 27,329/- per
cent, which is the value of the land fixed as per rules and the
petitioner is not entitled to reduction of the land value as claimed by
the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allotment was validly
cancelled since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of
allotment.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. At the outset, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me
that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent for allotment of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per
cent. Simply because the petitioner says that there was an oral
understanding without any supporting document, the same cannot be
accepted on face value, especially since such understanding is denied
by the 2nd respondent. The first document issued by the petitioner in
this regard is admittedly Ext. P3, which is the allotment letter. In the
same, it has been specifically stated that the provisional cost of the
land is Rs. 3,03,898/- at the rate of Rs. 27,329/- per cent. That was
the offer of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner is
perfectly free to accept the same or reject it. If the petitioner wanted
the land, the petitioner was bound to comply with the conditions in
Ext. P3. I cannot direct the respondents to allot the land to the
petitioner at a lesser value than what was offered to the petitioner.
O.P. No. 38005/01 -: 3 :-
Although the petitioner would contend that at the relevant time the
market value of the land in that area was much less, there is no
material on record to prove the same except the blank statement of
the petitioner to that effect.
In view of the above findings, I am not satisfied that the
petitioner is entitled to allotment of the land at a rate less than what
has been stated in Ext. P3 offer. Since the petitioner has failed to
comply wit the conditions in Ext. P3, the petitioner is not entitled to
allotment of the land as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd
respondent rightly cancelled the offer by Ext. P5 order. In the above
circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/