Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.

Kerala High Court
K.V.Janardhanan vs Olavanna Grama Panchayath on 20 December, 2010




WP(C).No. 37724 of 2010(M)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent


                For Petitioner  :SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :20/12/2010

 O R D E R
                        P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
                    W.P.(C) No. 37724 of 2010
          Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

The right to take the yield from 189 coconut palms was

sold in auction by the first respondent Grama Panchayat pursuant to

Ext.P1 re-auction notice dated 13.3.2009. The second respondent was

the successful bidder. Pursuant to the sale in his favour, the second

respondent has executed Ext.P2 agreement with the Secretary of the

local authority. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the

award of the right to take usufructs to the second respondent on

various grounds. The main contention raised is that though in Ext.P1

auction notice, the extent of the land is described as 54 cents, in

Ext.P2 agreement, the extent of the land is mentioned as 2.14 acres,

and therefore, the award of contract is vitiated. The petitioner also

attacks the award of the right to take usufructs on the ground that

Ext.P1 sale notice was not duly published. Ext.P1 sale notice is dated

13.3.2009. Ext.P2 agreement was entered on 22.4.2009. The auction

was conducted on 26.3.2009. The petitioner has no case in the writ

petition that he was not aware of Ext.P1 sale notice. In paragraph 3 of

the writ petition, the averment is that most of the persons were not

aware of the tender. However, in Ext.P3 representation dated nil, the

petitioner has stated that sale notice was not published in the

W.P.(C) No.37724 of 2010


newspaper dailies, and therefore, the petitioner and many others

could not participate in the auction. The petitioner has no case even

in Ext.P3 that he was unaware of the fact that the auction was in fact

conducted on 26.3.2009. As a matter of fact, Ext.P1 would indicate

that it was a re-sale notice which means that earlier there was a sale

notice. Further, the petitioner kept quiet for the past several months

without raising a dispute till he submitted Ext.P3 representation. The

challenge to the auction is therefore belated.

2. I shall now deal with the contention that the extent of

land has been wrongly mentioned in Ext.P2 as 2.14 acres instead of

54 cents. As per Ext.P1 sale notice, the right to take usufructs from

189 coconut palms was sold in auction. The petitioner has no case

that 54 cents of land can support 189 yielding coconut palms.

Therefore, it is evident that the statement regarding the extent of

land in Ext.P1 notice is erroneous. In such circumstances, I am of

the opinion that nothing turns on the statement in Ext.P2 agreement

that the land where the trees are standing has an area of 2 acres and

14 cents.

I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ

petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.



W.P.(C) No.37724 of 2010


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

9 queries in 0.111 seconds.