IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 WA.No. 1989 of 2011 ( ) =============== AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.31882/2011 DATED 30-11-2011 APPELLANT(S) ========= 1 THREE STAR ENGINEERING WORKS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE UMAYANALLOOR KOLLAM 691589 REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER NAMELY KOLLAM DIST BY ADV.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S) ========== 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2 THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (SIDCO) P.B.NO.50 HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3 THE ESTATE MANAGER, SIDCO UMAYANALLOOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE UMAYANALLOOR KOLLAM DIST-691589 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R2 AND R3 BY SC SRI.R.T.PRADEEP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1989 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. It is not in dispute that the present appellant was originally given offer to purchase Shed C24 plot land around the shed and also the adjacent land measuring 597.54 m2. Though in 1980 it was a lease, subsequently, an option was given to the lease holder to purchase the shed, open space and land at a rate fixed by the second respondent-Corporation. However, there was some controversy with regard to the rate fixed by the second respondent in 2003. Therefore, though it opted out to purchase the shed and space, the appellant did not choose to purchase the land. On the other hand, it corresponded with the second respondent for reduction of the price on the ground that the rate fixed by the second respondent was too high. It is kept pending till date. When the second respondent initiated proceedings to sell the adjacent land measuring 249.78 m2, according to the WA.1989/11 2 appellant, it has a right to purchase the said land as it was originally offered, but subject to the original price offered to them in 2003. What was offered to them in 2003 was a rate prevalent at that time, but the appellant did not choose to pay the said rate. After a period of almost eight years, the appellant wants to purchase the said land in the year 2011 for the price fixed in 2003. Exhibit P15 dated 31.8.2011 indicates that the respondent- Corporation was magnanimous in offering the properties to the appellant at a price to be fixed by the District Collector concerned. Even now it is open to the appellant to grab the opportunity to purchase the land adjacent to it. Once the land is sold to the third parties, the appellant will never have opportunity to ask for the said land. 2. The learned Single Judge, after considering all the facts and circumstances, rightly observed that the appellant can avail the benefit extended at Exhibit P15 even now, provided he approaches the third respondent within four weeks from the date of order, i.e., 30.11.2011. However, we note that the time spent in approaching this Court by filing this appeal indicates, already three weeks is over. The appellant has another one week to take the benefits of the direction of the learned Single Judge. Though WA.1989/11 3 we do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the Corporation, we only extend the time granted by the learned Single Judge till 15.1.2012 to approach the third respondent. With the above observation, we dispose of the Writ Appeal. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs