IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2359 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16957/2003 Dated 25/08/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE (DIC) ALLEPPEY, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL RESPONDENT/PETITIOER: ------------------------------------- M/S.MAGNUM GLASS WORKS, PLOT NO.28, CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AROOR P.O., ALLEPPY, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV.SRI.P.SANJAY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2359 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition by quashing Ext.P9 order of the Government resuming the land allotted to the Writ Petitioner on the ground that portion of the land being kept unutilised by him, the Government has filed this Writ Appeal. 2. The learned Single Judge considering the conduct of the appellant/Government in allotting a land to the writ petitioner, asking him to pay the entire value of the land and in spite of his being prompt in the action, now as per Ext.P9, a new ground is found out that the writ petitioner has not utilised the entire extent of land allotted to him. The learned Single Judge has, in detail, considered the Rules framed in this regard by the Government, especially Rule 9 which enables the Government to resume the land once assigned under certain circumstances. By looking into the WA No.2359 of 2009 -:2:- Clauses of Rule 9, especially Clauses i, ii, iv and v, we do not find anything to show that nonutilisation of part of the land can permit the Government to cancel the assignment and resume the land. 3. The learned Government pleader vehemently contended that though the entire land has been assigned to the writ petitioner and as he has not utilised the same to fullest extent(20 cents out of 36 cents), the violation is under Rule 9(iii) of the said Rules. 4. Rule 9(iii) of the Rules reads as follows: “9. The Director of Industries & Commerce shall have the power to resume the land allotted to an industrialist as per these Rules under any of the following circumstances: (i) xx xx (ii) xx xx (iii) If the allottee does not require the land for the purpose for which it is allotted and informs the Director of Industries & Commerce accordingly.” 5. This Rule is only in respect of the voluntary act of the assignee who intends to surrender the land and not WA No.2359 of 2009 -:3:- compulsory resuming by the Government on the present ground or reason, since resumption of land on the ground of nonutilisation is not permitted under this Rule. In our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing Ext.P9. 6. It is also contended by the Government Pleader that as the Government apprehends that petitioner intends to alienate the property, that can be a ground for resumption. 7. First of all, this is not the reason given in Ext.P9 for the alleged resumption and absolutely no material is placed before us for assuming such condition. Looking at the case from any angle, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Government has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred under Rule 9 of the Rules to resume 20 cents of land out of 36 cents, from the petitioner. Hence, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge the intention of the Government is not only illegal but appears to be mala fide and hence we find no reason to WA No.2359 of 2009 -:4:- interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. In view of the same, the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb