IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13197 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.S. INDUSTRIES, 16/284, MAMBRA, KODULTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, S. ISSAK. 2. S. ISSAK, RESIDING AT AVINASHI HOUSE, MAMBARA KODUTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD - 687 004. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 13197 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were alloted a property in an industrial estate, under the hire purchase agreement for starting an industry. That allotment was in 2008. Now Ext.P12 order has been passed on 30.3.2010 ordering resumption of the land on the ground that the petitioners have not utilised the property for the purpose for which it was allotted within the time stipulated for the purpose. The petitioners challenge Ext.P12 order. The main contention of the petitioners is that in Ext.P2 agreement entered into between the Government and the petitioners, there is no stipulation that the land has to be utilised within any stipulated time. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioners. 3. I find that in Ext.P4(a), which is the order of allotment, there is a specific clause, which read thus; “4. The land allotted is to be utilised for the purpose for which it is alloted within a period of six months. Breach of contract or violation of any relevant rules by the allottee will entail in resumption of land.” 4. The counsel for the petitioners would argue that in so far as that clause has not been incorporated in Ext.P2 agreement, the petitioners cannot be bound by that clause. I am not inclined to agree. The allotment itself is on the specific condition that the land has to be w.p.c.13197/10 2 utilized within six months. Therefore, Ext.P2 agreement can only be subject to that condition. Even otherwise, from Ext.P12 order, I find that the petitioners have been several times granted extension of time to utilise the alloted property for the purpose for which it was granted. The allotment of the property for industrial purpose is for the specific purpose of promoting industry. The petitioners cannot after getting allotment keep the property unutilised indefinitely, especially when other entrepreneurs are standing in the queue for allotment of land to start industries. In this case, the allotment was as early as on 17.6.2008. For two years the petitioners could not start the industry. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P12 order directing resumption of the land on the ground of failure to utilise the land for the purpose for which it was allotted. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.13197/10 3 ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge