IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2359 of 2009()
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES,
3. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE (DIC)
Vs
1. M/S.MAGNUM GLASS WORKS, PLOT NO.28,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 2359 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
allowing the Writ Petition by quashing Ext.P9 order of the
Government resuming the land allotted to the Writ Petitioner
on the ground that portion of the land being kept unutilised
by him, the Government has filed this Writ Appeal.
2. The learned Single Judge considering the conduct of
the appellant/Government in allotting a land to the writ
petitioner, asking him to pay the entire value of the land and
in spite of his being prompt in the action, now as per Ext.P9,
a new ground is found out that the writ petitioner has not
utilised the entire extent of land allotted to him. The
learned Single Judge has, in detail, considered the Rules
framed in this regard by the Government, especially Rule 9
which enables the Government to resume the land once
assigned under certain circumstances. By looking into the
WA No.2359 of 2009
-:2:-
Clauses of Rule 9, especially Clauses i, ii, iv and v, we do not
find anything to show that nonutilisation of part of the land
can permit the Government to cancel the assignment and
resume the land.
3. The learned Government pleader vehemently
contended that though the entire land has been assigned to
the writ petitioner and as he has not utilised the same to
fullest extent(20 cents out of 36 cents), the violation is
under Rule 9(iii) of the said Rules.
4. Rule 9(iii) of the Rules reads as follows:
“9. The Director of Industries & Commerce shall
have the power to resume the land allotted to an
industrialist as per these Rules under any of the
following circumstances:
(i) xx xx
(ii) xx xx
(iii) If the allottee does not require the land for the
purpose for which it is allotted and informs the Director
of Industries & Commerce accordingly.”
5. This Rule is only in respect of the voluntary act of
the assignee who intends to surrender the land and not
WA No.2359 of 2009
-:3:-
compulsory resuming by the Government on the present
ground or reason, since resumption of land on the ground of
nonutilisation is not permitted under this Rule. In our view,
the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing Ext.P9.
6. It is also contended by the Government Pleader that
as the Government apprehends that petitioner intends to
alienate the property, that can be a ground for resumption.
7. First of all, this is not the reason given in Ext.P9 for
the alleged resumption and absolutely no material is placed
before us for assuming such condition. Looking at the case
from any angle, we find that the learned Single Judge was
justified in holding that the Government has exceeded its
jurisdiction conferred under Rule 9 of the Rules to resume 20
cents of land out of 36 cents, from the petitioner.
Hence, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge
the intention of the Government is not only illegal but
appears to be mala fide and hence we find no reason to
WA No.2359 of 2009
-:4:-
interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single
Judge. In view of the same, the Writ Appeal is devoid of
merits and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
A.K. Basheer,
Judge.
ttb