IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 OP.No. 38005 of 2001(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B. PRASANNAKUMARI, GANGOTHRI, C.M.C.-16, CHERTHALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIDCO, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU, SC, SIDCO FOR R2 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 38005/2001. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2 RECEIPT DT. 17-5-1999. EXT.P3 PROCEEDINGS DT. 2-5-2001. EXT.P4 REPLY DT. 31-5-2001. EXT.P5 NOTICE DT. 6-8-2001. EXT.P6 REPRESENTATION DT. 24-8-2001. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 13-11-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 38005 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an entrepreneur, who is running a small scale industrial unit in the name and style “M/s. Gangothri Industries.” For the purpose of the said industrial unit, the petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent for allotment of a piece of land in the Cherthala Industrial Estate of the SIDCO. The petitioner paid Rs. 4000/- as application fee as evidenced by Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, as per the understanding between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent had agreed to allot the land for a land value of Rs. 18,000/- per cent. But, contrary to that understanding, when, by Ext. P3, allotment was made, the petitioner was required to pay provisional cost of Rs. 3,03,898/- at the rate of Rs. 27,329/- per cent for 11.12 cents. As per the allotment order, the petitioner was required to pay the cost of the property as stipulated in the said order. On receipt of Ext. P3, the petitioner issued Ext. P4 to the General Manager of SIDCO contending that the agreed land value was Rs. 18,000/- per cent and therefore, the land value may be reduced accordingly. By Ext. P5 letter dated 6-8-2001, the petitioner was informed by the General Manager that the cost of the land fixed cannot be reduced and directed the petitioner to remit 30% of the provisional cost as initial payment and the balance in 36 monthly instalments with interest as per the Rules. The petitioner again disputed the land value by filing Ext. P6 letter dated 24-8-2001. On receipt of the same, by Ext. P7 order dated 13-11-2001, the General Manager cancelled the allotment on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the allotment within the stipulated time. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P7 order. 2. According to the petitioner, the agreed value of the land was Rs. 18,000/- per cent and therefore it was unreasonable on the part of O.P. No. 38005/01 -: 2 :- the 2nd respondent to enhance the same to Rs. 27,329/- per cent. The petitioner would contend that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get allotment of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per cent. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating that there was no agreement for allotment of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per cent as contended by the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was offered the land for a provisional value of Rs. 3,03,898/- at the rate of Rs. 27,329/- per cent, which is the value of the land fixed as per rules and the petitioner is not entitled to reduction of the land value as claimed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allotment was validly cancelled since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of allotment. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. At the outset, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for allotment of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per cent. Simply because the petitioner says that there was an oral understanding without any supporting document, the same cannot be accepted on face value, especially since such understanding is denied by the 2nd respondent. The first document issued by the petitioner in this regard is admittedly Ext. P3, which is the allotment letter. In the same, it has been specifically stated that the provisional cost of the land is Rs. 3,03,898/- at the rate of Rs. 27,329/- per cent. That was the offer of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner is perfectly free to accept the same or reject it. If the petitioner wanted the land, the petitioner was bound to comply with the conditions in Ext. P3. I cannot direct the respondents to allot the land to the petitioner at a lesser value than what was offered to the petitioner. O.P. No. 38005/01 -: 3 :- Although the petitioner would contend that at the relevant time the market value of the land in that area was much less, there is no material on record to prove the same except the blank statement of the petitioner to that effect. In view of the above findings, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of the land at a rate less than what has been stated in Ext. P3 offer. Since the petitioner has failed to comply wit the conditions in Ext. P3, the petitioner is not entitled to allotment of the land as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent rightly cancelled the offer by Ext. P5 order. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/