IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33830 of 2007(B)
1. PERIYAR STEEL PVT. LTD. INDUSTRIAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 33830 OF 2007 B
=====================
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
99 cents of land was alloted in favour of the petitioner.
However, on the allegation that a substantial portion of the said
land was remaining unutilised, Ext.P1 order was issued on
5/11/2005 cancelling the allotment of 45 cents. Though Ext.P1 is
of 5/11/2005, petitioner submits that he came to know of it only
on 1/8/07 and hence Ext.P2 reply could be given only on 7/9/07,
submits the counsel. Be that as it may, Ext.P3 show cause was
issued subsequently, calling upon the petitioner to show cause
why the entire plot of 99 cents should not be resumed by the
respondent. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply and considering
the contentions therein, now Ext.P5 order has been issued giving
the petitioner 6 months time to utilise 54 cents of land and
requiring him to surrender the balance 45 cents. It is challenging
Ext.P5, that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
2. Pleadings in the case shows that even according to the
petitioner the entire land is not utilised as per the conditions of
allotment, in which case the respondent is perfectly justified in
WPC 33830/07
: 2 :
ordering its resumption. It is needless to state that in the event
there is non utilisation of the land alloted, the allotee cannot be
allowed to retain the same as it will defeat the purpose of
allotment. In any case, petitioner is still given sufficient time to
utilise the 54 cents also. For these reasons, I am satisfied that
Ext.P5 is legally valid.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp