IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2680 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, M.I.G.19, KASTURBA NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-20. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, G.C.D.A., KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN 682 020. 4. T.K.SOMAN, THOLOORUTHIL HOUSE, MULAMTHURUTHY. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC,GCDA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008,ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.3727/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 2680 & 3727 OF 2008 ======================== Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in WP(C) No.2680/08 is to compell the respondents to refrain from evicting the petitioner from MIG 19 under the Elamkulam West Extension Scheme of G.C.D.A and to permit him to reside there without being evicted. Petitioner submits that the property in question was originally allotted to the 4th respondent and that he is the present occupant of the said premises since 1993 when the building was put in his possession. Petitioner admits that 4th respondent had defaulted the instalments that are due and even from the submissions made the impression I got is that the last payment was made only in 1997. It is stated that the petitioner is facing threat of eviction and it is on account of this, writ petition has been filed. Petitioner submits that he is willing to discharge the liability to WPC 2680 &3727/08 :2 : the GCDA and therefore his possession and enjoyment should not be disturbed. 2. The GCDA has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the property in question was allotted to the 4th respondent and that an agreement was executed between the parties on 18/04/92. It is stated that there was continued default and that after issuing several notices, the allotment in question was cancelled by Ext.R2(a) issued on 18/1/01. It is also stated that thereupon Ext.R2(b) representation was made by the 4th respondent and thereafter the 4th respondent had approached the Government by filing an appeal dated 10/6/01. The Government ordered that further proceedings be kept in abeyance and finally permitted the 4th respondent to clear the arrears in six equal monthly instalments. This was also defaulted by the 4th respondent. Again Ext.R2(c) was issued cancelling the allotment and thereafter also the default continued and the matter was taken up with the Government and the Government issued Ext.R2(e) permitting the GCDA to proceed with further steps to implement the order of eviction. Once again Ext.R2(f) notice was WPC 2680 &3727/08 :3 : served on the 4th respondent asking him to vacate from the premises which also did not evoke any response. It is still later that Ext.R2(h) final notice was issued, which was also returned unclaimed and thereupon Ext.R2(i) notice dated 13/6/07 was issued and that the same was served by affixture. The GCDA would assert without being contradicted by the petitioner that for the last more than ten years, there has not been any payment from the allottee. It is the further case of the GCDA that the property in question has been unauthorisedly transferred by the 4th respondent to the petitioner and that is in violation of the terms of allotment itself. 3. From the above, it can be seen that there obviously is violation of the terms of allotment. Money is due from the allottee to the GCDA and there has been default for the last more than ten years. The allottee is not in occupation of the premises and GCDA has a case that even the petitioner has transferred the possession of the premises to somebody else. In these circumstances, the GCDA cannot be faulted for the steps it has taken on account of the continued violation of the terms of WPC 2680 &3727/08 :4 : allotment that was committed by the petitioner. It is obviously on account of the enhancement in price that the petitioner has now come forward with the offer that he has now made to make payment to the GCDA at this distance of time. Since the allotment itself has been cancelled and that too way back in 2001, I do not find any bonafides in the request nor do I feel that this court will be justified in compelling the GCDA to accept the offer of payment now made by the petitioner and to revive the contractual relationship that is already terminated. True it is harsh, but then on account of the terms of the contract this court will not be justified in interfering in this matter. 4. WP(C) 3727/08 has been filed by the petitioner, after counter affidavit was filed by the GCDA in WP(C) No.2680/08. The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P4 and P5. Ext.P4 is an order dated 13/3/2007 issued by the GCDA. As already stated, though this was issued by the GCDA cancelling the allotment to the 4th respondent and requiring him to hand over possession, from the pleadings in this case, it is evident that allotment was cancelled way back in 2001 and that following the WPC 2680 &3727/08 :5 : subsequent developments several opportunities were given to the allottee to clear the arrears and successive orders of cancellation have been issued by the GCDA. Therefore, it is not correct for the petitioner to contend that it was only by Ext.P4 that the allotment was cancelled. Similarly Ext.P5 is one whereby the notice was reissued as is evident from Ext.P5 itself. 5. In view of the facts as stated above and the terms of the contract between the parties, which has been admittedly violated, I do not find any merit in the contentions now raised by the petitioner in WP(C) No.3727/08 as well. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp