Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Ptl Enterprises Limited on 7 January, 2020
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WA.No.2493 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN WP(C) 12098/2017(J) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (GENERAL ADMINISTRATION),
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 030.
BY SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE: 3RD FLOOR, AREEKAL MANSION,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI- 682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.JACOB KOSHY.
2 KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK
AVENUE, KOCHI-682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
3 THE GENERAL MANAGER (CIVIL),
KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR,
REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI- 682 011.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2020, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -2-
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2020.
JUDGMENT
Shaji P. Chaly, J The respondents in W.P.(C) No. 12098 of 2017 filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19.07.2019, whereby the compensation amount determined on the land acquired for the purpose of Kochi Metro Rail was directed to be paid to the writ petitioner i.e., the first respondent in the appeal, along with interest in terms of Ext.P10 agreement, and consequential further directions were also issued.
2. The material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The writ petitioner is a Public Limited Company, which was assigned with land by the Government in the year 1962 and one of the conditions of the assignment was that the company will not use the land for any purpose other than for which the land has been acquired without the previous W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -3- sanction of the Government, which sanction will not be given unless the new purpose also is justified by the test of Public purpose. The lands so assigned ad-measuring 62.22 Ares situated in Re- Survey Nos. 369/1-3, 369/1-4 and 369/1-6 of Block 5 of Thrikkakkara North Village was acquired for the purpose of the construction of Kochi Metro Rail. The compensation amount was determined at Rs.29,36,28,391/-. Consequent upon determination, an agreement for sale was executed and 80% of the sale consideration was payable at that time. However, payment was withheld for want of clearance from the Financial Department of the State Government. The Government, noting the fact that the land was assigned to the writ petitioner invoking the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Government Land Assignment Act, 1950, was of the view that the Government has the right to claim compensation. Challenging the action, the writ petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 34179 of 2014, which was disposed of directing the Government to find out whether any reversionary right is W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -4- vested with the Government after assignment to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the Government considered the matter and Ext.P19 order was passed expressing the view that it has the reversionary right to the land, and that the writ petitioner is only entitled for the land value originally paid with interest thereon with cost of improvements etc. It is, thus, challenging Ext.P19 that the writ petition was filed.
3. The learned single Judge, after evaluating the pros and cons and the facts and figures projected by the respective parties and after having appreciated the reversionary right contained in Ext.P3 order passed by the State Government dated 29.11.1982, has arrived at a finding that the company had not violated any conditions of assignment. Therefore, the company is the absolute owner of the property which enjoys the same under such assignment. It is also found that Ext.P2 patta, after mutating the property, was also issued and the company had not violated any conditions of assignment. Therefore, the company is the absolute owner of the property, so long as it enjoys the same under such assignment. It was W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -5- also found that the reversionary right of the Government is one that is contingent upon the happening of certain events and that it was not available to the Government. After entering the findings so, it was held that the writ petitioner is entitled to receive compensation on account of the acquisition by the Kochi Metro and the consequential agreement executed by and between the parties.
4. We have heard Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, Sri. E.K. Nandakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. and have perused the pleadings and documents on record.
5. Learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that eventhough Ext.P3 assignment order is issued in favour of the writ petitioner, no patta was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 ('the Rules, 1964' for short). He has invited our attention to Rule 9 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 dealing with the W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -6- 'collection of arrears of Government dues and issue of Provisional Patta' and sub-Rule (1) stipulates that the order granting registry shall be issued in the form in Appendix I to the Rules. Sub-Rule (2) stipulates that "in cases where registry is made, patta shall be issued in the form in Appendix II to these rules. Where such patta is issued pending survey and demarcation, a note to the effect that the area noted in the patta is subject to revision after finalisation of the survey and demarcation shall be made in the Patta. In such cases, when survey and demarcation is completed, the exact area assigned shall be noted in the patta by the assigning authority." Therefore, it is contended that eventhough registry is granted by issuing Ext.P3 order, it was not followed by patta. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot claim ownership of the land.
6. To a specific query made by this Court as to whether the cancellation of the assignment of the registry was made by the Government on account of the conditions contained in Ext.P3 order of assignment, the learned Addl. Advocate W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -7- General submitted that no such action was initiated by the State Government eversince the assignment of the land in favour of the writ petitioner. However, according to the learned Addl. Advocate General, since title will be conferred on the writ petitioner on issuance of patta alone, no ownership right can be claimed by the writ petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that it is an admitted fact that the land in question was assigned in favour of the writ petitioner.
8. Going by Rule 9 of the Rules, 1964, it is quite clear and evident that after the order granting registry as per Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1964, it is the mandatory duty of the Government to issue patta in accordance with Appendix II of the Rules. If patta is not issued in terms of the Rules, 1964 by the Government, that will not have any adverse consequence, so far as the order granting registry is concerned.
9. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. It is quite significant to note that Rule 8 of the Rules, W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -8- 1964 deals with conditions of assignment on registry. Admittedly, as per Ext.P3 assignment, three conditions were incorporated and it read thus:
1. The company will pay any excess compensation that may be awarded in future by any competent civil court in respect of the acquired land.
2. The company will relinquish the land with structures to the Government in case the factory does not function.
3. The company will not use the land for any purpose other than that for which the land has been acquired without the previous sanction of the Government which sanction will not be given unless the new purpose also is justified by the test of public purpose.
10. It is an admitted fact that there is no case for the Government that the factory has ceased functioning and that company has used the land for any purpose other than for which the land has been acquired without the previous sanction of the Government. Admittedly, the land in question was assigned to the writ petitioner for the establishment of a tyre factory. Rule 8(3) of the Rules, 1964 is relevant in this context and it reads thus:
"The registry shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of the provisions in sub-Rule (1A) or sub-rule (2). The registry may be cancelled also, if it found that it was grossly inequitable or was made under a mistake of facts or owing to misrepresentation of facts or in excess of the limits of the powers delegated to the assigning authority W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -9- or that there was an irregularity in the procedure. In the event of cancellation of the registry, the assignee shall not be entitled to compensation for any improvements he may have made on the land. The authority competent to order such cancellation shall be the authority which granted the registry, or one superior to it.
11. Therefore, it is clear that unless and until registry is cancelled by the Government, which has assigned the land in favour of the writ petitioner, the Government will not have any claim over the property in question. So also, we find that consequent to the assignment made by the Government, mutation of the property was effected, necessary changes were made in the Basic Tax Register and the property is having thandaper number 4456 in favour of the writ petitioner. Tax is also paid by the writ petitioner evident from the documents produced along with the writ petition.
12. That apart, it is significant to note that as per Ext.P1 Government Order No.127 dated 16.02.1962, the land in question was acquired at the request of the writ petitioner company for the purpose of establishing a tyre factory at Kalamassery, Ernakulam District. It is also noted thereunder that the company has paid the money on account of the W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -10- acquisition charges and the land was acquired under the provisions of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act and the company was put in possession of the land and they have erected the buildings and the installation of the machinery is nearing completion. It is also stated thereunder that the draft of the indenture of sale in respect of the land was forwarded to the company by the District Collector, Ernakulam. But, the company has objected to it as so many conditions are attached to it, and they have requested that the land may be assigned to them under the existing laws. It is also clear that under Section 2(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Government Land Assignment Act, 1950, the land once acquired becomes Government land. It was thereupon directed to assign the land in favour of the writ petitioner invoking the powers conferred under Rule 24 of the Rules for the assignment of the Government lands. It is also evident from Ext.P3 Government Memorandum dated 29.11.1982 that as the assignment of land in favour of the Company under Rule 24 of the Rules for the assignment of Government lands has already W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -11- been ordered, it was suggested by the District Collector, Ernakulam that there is no need for the execution of sale deed by the Government and the company has approved the same. Thereupon, it is explicit that the company was directed to pass a resolution agreeing to the conditions incorporated in Ext.P3 and forward the same to the Government. These are all factual circumstances not disputed by the Government at any point of time.
13. It was thus taking into account all the factual and legal circumstances, the learned single Judge has interfered with Ext.P19 order passed by the State Government, and held that it has no reversionary rights and that the order passed by the Government is not in terms of law and therefore, the writ petitioner was entitled to receive compensation on account of the acquisition made by the Kochi Metro Rail Limited and the consequential agreement entered into by and between the parties.
14. Having evaluated the situation, both factual and legal, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -12- out by the appellants so as to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge exercising the powers conferred on this Court under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.
Resultantly, writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv W.A. No. 2493 of 2019 -13-