IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 2126 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35735/2010 Dated 07/12/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. ELOOR-KADUNGALLOORE PANCHAYAT AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL HARIJAN MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD E.704, (NOW AS SCSCS LIMITED E.704) MUPPATHADAM.P.O. ALUVA REP. BY SERETARY C.C. SAJEEVAN. 2. V. KAMALAN, PRESIDENT, E K P AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL SCSCS LTD., MUPPATHADAM.P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES DEPT. GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR,(GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE DEPT. VALANJAMBALAM, COCHIN-16. BY G.P. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.37950 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2126 of 2010 & W.P.(C) No.37950 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Both the Writ Appeal and the W.P.(C) pertain to the same matter wherein the challenge by the appellant/petitioner is against resumption and allotment of industrial land to four persons by the Government. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner, Government Pleader and counsel appearing for the allottee. 2. An extent of 75 cents of industrial land was allotted to the appellant/petitioner by the Government in the year 1985 for starting an industry. The total consideration paid was Rs.33,120/-. The land was allotted for setting up of industry. However, for 12 years the appellant/petitioner could not start any industry and in the year 1997, though they started a lime processing unit, the same was closed within one year. Admittedly for another 10 years the land remained idle and unutilised. Therefore, 50 cents of land was resumed by the W.A. 2126/10 & conn. 2 Government. Later on 20.4.2009 the balance 25 cents of land was also resumed. Based on request from several entrepreneurs, the land was divided into four plots, 3 plots of 20 cents and one plot of 15 cents and all the four plots were allotted to four new applicants for starting industry and even possession is given to them which is obstructed by the appellant/petitioner. It is against this proceedings the appellant/petitioner approached this court and after dismissal of the first writ petition the Writ Appeal was filed and besides this, another writ petition was also filed which was called by us to be heard along with the Writ Appeal. 3. After hearing both sides, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also the orders of the Government in resuming the land because admittedly the land was allotted for industrial purpose and appellant/petitioner miserably failed to set up industry. Further, the management of the appellant-Society also keeps on changing and even as of now, the appellant/petitioner's proposal is to get financial assistance from the Government to start industry. We do not think there is any justification W.A. 2126/10 & conn. 3 to accept the contention of the appellant merely because the Society is said to be controlled by members of the Scheduled Caste community. We, therefore, uphold the orders of the Government with regard to resumption and allotment of land to new applicants. Consequently the Writ Appeal as well as Writ Petition are dismissed. However, we make it clear that as and when the appellant/petitioner is in a position to set up any industry, they are free to approach the Government and the Government will consider allotment of land wherever the same is available, whether it be in the same estate or elsewhere. The appellant/petitioner can approach with specific schemes for starting industry and convince the Industries Department about their preparedness and willingness to start industry for them to allot suitable land. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms