IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 111 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31188/2007 DATED 13/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: -------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, COCHIN HOUSING UNIT, COCHIN-36. 3. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, COCHIN-28. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------- SMT.T.K.ANNAMMA, 28/815, PANAKKAL HOUSE, MATTALIL TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTRA, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.M.JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.111 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Petitioner was allotted a plot of land in 1984 by the appellant Kerala State Housing Board. But the possession was handed over by Ext.P1 only in 2002. An application was made for transfer of the said plot. The said application was processed by the 2nd respondent and petitioner was asked to remit transfer fee of Rs.2,956/-. But transfer was declined to be effected, on condition that, petitioner should remit 10% of the market value of the plot on the basis of Ext.P6. But on the basis of Ext.P6, transfer fee was only Rs.1,000/-. It is the contention of the appellant that on 27.6.2007, Housing Board decided to levy 10% of the market value for transfer. But petitioner was allotted the plot in 1984. Possession was in 2002 and application for transfer was made on 7.5.2005. Considering these facts, learned Judge directed that petitioner W.A.111/08 2 can be relied only with the amount at the time of application and Exts.P9 and P10 were quashed. Later review petition was filed against the judgment. That review petition was also dismissed and the review order is not challenged in the appeal. In any event, we are of the opinion that learned Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction. The Housing Board ought have considered the application earlier. Because of the delay in considering the application policy cannot be altered to the determination of the petition. We see no ground to interfere in the discretionary powers exercised by the learned single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, four weeks time granted by the learned Single Judge for complying with the judgment will start from today. With the above observations this petition is disposed of. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE prp W.A.111/08 3 J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 1st January, 2008