IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27663 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ANUPAMA VARMA,W/O.E.M.SURESH SURENDRAN, 38,GIRINAGAR NORTH,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-20. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE(G) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM - 1. 2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-20,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. BLUE DOT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,T.G.VARGHESE,ANASWARA HOUSE, 33/2017 A,ARAKKAKADAVU ROAD,VENNALA DESOM, VENNALA VILLAGE,KOCHI-28. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27663/2010 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PERMISSION SOUGHT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER LETTER DTD. 21/10/2004. P2: COPY OF THE G.O. DTD. 19/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF HTE AGREEMENT DTD. 19/12/2005 EXEUCUTED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DGD. 4/07/2008 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DTD. 4/07/2008 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/08/2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.27663 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT A joint venture agreement was entered into between respondents 2 and 3. As per the said agreement, 49 cents of land belonging to the second respondent was transferred to the third respondent for the construction of residential apartments under a scheme on 'Build, Share and Transfer' basis. The agreement provided that on such construction, the second respondent is to be given in 30% of the built-up area and the third respondent was free to market the remaining built-up area. However, title to the land was with GCDA and hence, purchases of apartments are to get title to the land only by a sale deed executed by the GCDA. 2. Accordingly, when the built up area belonging to the third respondent was offered for sale, petitioner offered to purchase a flat. On that basis, the parties entered into Exts.P4 and P5 agreements and according to the petitioners, she has already paid Rs.70,77,500/- to the third respondent and was put W.P.(c)No.27663 of 2010 2 in possession of a flat with a built up area of 1965 square feet on the second floor marked as B in Soorya Enclave. According to the petitioners, although more than three years have elapsed, she has not so far been given title deed and the requests made by the petitioner to respondents 2 and 3 did not yield any results. It is in these circumstances, Writ Petition has been filed and the prayer sought for is to direct the respondents to register the title deed in her favour. 3. As far as, second respondent GCDA concerned, though allotment of the flat in question has been made by third respondent, in respect of the undivided share in the land, they are willing to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner, provided she produces an appropriate no objection certificate from the third respondent and also document concerning payment of property tax, by the builder. They also want the petitioner to produce the original of Exts.P4 and P5 agreements. 4. Insofar as, the third respondent is concerned, although in response to the notice issued in this Writ Petition, they were initially represented by a counsel, a memo has been filed by the W.P.(c)No.27663 of 2010 3 counsel relinquishing his appearance. Thereafter, no alternate arrangements have been made sofar. Further, no counter affidavit also has been filed by the third respondent. 5. These circumstances justify an inference that the averments in the Writ Petition are factually correct and are admitted. Therefore, the only conclusion that it is possible that the petitioner has paid the entire amount due to the third respondent and that therefore, she is entitled to get the sale deed executed. In view of this and also taking note of the stand adopted by the GCDA, I direct that on the production of this judgment, the third respondent will issue appropriate NOC and also documents evidencing payment of property tax concerning the flat in question, which is in her possession. This shall be done by the third respondent within 10 days of a receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Once the aforesaid documents are issued by the third respondent, it will be open to the petitioner to produce the said documents and the originals of Exts.P4 and P5 agreement along with an appropriate application before the second respondent and W.P.(c)No.27663 of 2010 4 thereupon, the second respondent will take appropriate steps for registration of the title deed in favour of the petitioner. This shall be done at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the documents mentioned above. sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE /True copy/ P.A. to judge ln