IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37724 of 2010(M)
1. K.V.JANARDHANAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. RAVEENDRAN V.P., S/O.PERACHAN,
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
2
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.
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
nj.
W.P.(C) No.37724 of 2010
2
