IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37724 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V.JANARDHANAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PACHU KUTTY, 'VYDOORIAM', POTHANCHERYTHAZHAM, P.O.POKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE – 673 007. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE- 673 007. 2. RAVEENDRAN V.P., S/O.PERACHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, VELAPPALLY HOUSE, POST KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE-673 655. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. 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