IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2481 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18354/2004 Dated 14/06/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- GRACE JOSEPH, A5/94 PADUA BHAVAN, GHAS AMALAGIRI P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, 3RD FLOOR, HSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI.\ 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KOTTAYAM DIVISION,KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. & C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 2481 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This is a matter remanded by the Supreme Court. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the Housing Board. 2. The remand by the Supreme Court is only for limited purpose of redetermining the liability if any for the appellant towards additional land cost payable to the Housing Board. The Supreme Court has clearly stated in the judgment that Housing Board should give break-up details of land cost and service charges in respect of 1,17,212.92 which is the original claim of the Housing Board as on 31.12.2008. We have seen the copy of the memo filed by the Housing Board before this Court which is stated to be the break-up details of the amount demanded from the appellant. On going through the same, we notice that as against provisional value collected, the actual land cost has only gone down. The balance working sheet appears to be based on 2 circulars of the Chief Engineer of the Housing Board. Nothing is stated therein as to what the circular is about and what is the basis. In our view, the appeal filed by the Housing Board before the Supreme Court was a wasteful exercise, which only ended up in loss to the Housing Board. We find no merit in the case of the Housing Board. Since the claim remains unsubstantiated, additional demand of land cost of Rs. 1,17,212.92 is vacated. W.A. is allowed as above. (P.R. RAMAN) Ag. Chief Justice (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 3