IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26828 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KUNJU KUNJAMMA KOSHY, W/O.LATE G.KOSHY, AGED 62, M/S.GEEKAY INDUSTRIES, SHED NO.C-13 AB, KOLLAKADAVU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KALLIMEL P.O., MAVELLIKARA-690 570. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ESTATE MANAGER, KOLLAKADAVU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KOLLAKADAVU, KALLIMEL, MAVELIKKARA-690 570. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED: 3. SMT. NISHA SURESH, SURESH BHAVAN, VARENICAL, MAVELIKARA – 690 570. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/09/2010 IN I.A. NO. 13115/10. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.26828 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, a total extent of 33.150 cents of land was earmarked for allotment to her husband for a small scale industrial unit set up by him, out of which, 890 sq.ms. (22 cents) of land was alloted to him. The petitioner seeks to support this contention by referring to Exts.P8 & P10. The petitioner states that her husband expired and since then, she is continuing in possession of the land allotted and is running the small scale industry. 2. According to the petitioner, in addition to the 22 cents of land, since 1964 her husband and since his death herself, are in possession of the adjacent 9 more cents of land. The petitioner states that by Exts.P1 & P2, she applied for allotment of the said 9 cents of land. It is also her case that she has paid the EMD for this 9 cents as per Exts.P4 & P11. It is stated that despite all the above, the land has now been allotted to a third party as per Annexure IV proceedings dated 03/07/2010. It is in these circumstances, this WP(C) No.26828/2010 -2- writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the allotment made to the 3rd party and to direct the respondents to allot the 9 cents plot in her favour. 3. On the otherhand, the respondents seriously dispute the claim of the petitioner about the extent of the land allotted to her husband. According to the respondents, the total extent of land alloted is only 420 sq.ms. (10.5 cents) and not 890 sq.ms. (22 cents) as claimed by the petitioner. It is stated that in addition to the 10.5 cents (420 sq.ms.) of land, the petitioner has been in possession of an extent of about 9.5 cents of land. It is also their case that seeking allotment of the said land, they have not received any application from the petitioner and that if the petitioner makes an application, the respondents are willing to consider the request in accordance with the Rules for allotment of industrial plots. 4. Prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash the allotment of the land sought by the petitioner and to direct the respondents to allot the land to herself. Admittedly, the petitioner is running an industrial unit. Going by the pleadings, land has been allotted to the petitioner and what the petitioner seeks is allotment WP(C) No.26828/2010 -3- of additional extent of land for the purpose of her industrial unit. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the additional respondent has applied for allotment of industrial plot for setting up an industry, which was considered and land has been allotted to the additional respondent in accordance with the Rules governing such allotment. Since the petitioner is already allotted land where she is running her Unit and since allotment made to the additional respondent is for setting up an industrial unit, the same cannot be said to be vitiated for any reason warranting interference in a proceedings before this Court. That apart, not only that there is dispute regarding the extent of land in the possession of the petitioner, there is also dispute as to whether the petitioner made any application for allotment as claimed by her. These are not disputes which are capable of being resolved in a writ petition. 5. However, if as stated by the respondents, there is plot of land in the possession of the petitioner, which is available for allotment, and as the respondents themselves have expressed their willingness to allot the same if the petitioner makes an application satisfying the conditions specified for its allotment, it is directed WP(C) No.26828/2010 -4- that it will be open to the petitioner to seek allotment of the said plot. It is ordered that in the event an application is made, the respondents will consider the same and take necessary action in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even now she is in possession of the land allotted to the additional respondent and that the land is used for storing timber logs and seeks some time to vacate the land. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also. Having regard to the facts pointed out, it is directed that the petitioner will be given four weeks' time to surrender the land to the respondents. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg