IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 4553 of 2005(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TOM C.A., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, EDAMALA HOUSE, PARATHODU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.P.RESHMA KABIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KANJIRAPPALLY. BY SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4553/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF the LETTER NO.B1-7797/92 DATED 29/03/1994 OF R1. P2 : COPY OF ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT DATED 02/04/1994. P3 : COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1 DATED 03/03/1995. P4 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.B7/7797/92 DATED 12/07/2004. P5 : COPY OF NOTICE NO.B2/172/04/B3 DATED 13/12/2004 ISSUED BY R2. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4553 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 & P5 recovery proceedings for recovery of Rs.30,958/- being the additional resumption cost payable by petitioner for the industrial land alloted to petitioner, which is not developed by petitioner through construction and starting of industry. The allotment was in the year 1992 and an advance of Rs.16,734/- was paid by him. Later a partnership was constituted, of which petitioner was one of the partners, and the allotment was made in the name of the Firm. However, on account of default of the allottees in constructing the building and starting the industry, the land was resumed by the Department. Since the allottees have committed violation of agreement, 6% of the land cost is taken as resumption cost and after adjusting the amount deposited by the allottee, the balance is sought to be recovered. Petitioners' case is that the land was never demarcated and possession given to them. Therefore, resumption does not arise and the demand of resumption charge is not justified. There is nothing to indicate that property was demarcated and possession was given to the allottees. Even though learned Government Pleader WP(C) No.4553/2005 -2- submitted that possession was given immediately after the allotment, there is no proof. In any case, I find that the Government has not suffered any loss in this case because land was shortly repossessed and reallotted. I feel lapses of the Government is more than the lapses of the allottees because even after taking over the land after violation of the terms of allotment by petitioner, the land was physically repossessed and reallotted only after five years i.e. in 1997. Obviously, on reallotment the Government would have got much higher charges which would have compensated for the lapses on the part of the petitioner. Besides this, an amount of Rs.16,734/- deposited by the original allottee is also forfeited to the Government. In the circumstances, I allow the writ petition quashing the balance demand from petitioner or from other allottees or from the Firm. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg