PRADEEP KUMAR P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22744 of 2020 dtd. 17/11/2021, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and refused to interfere with Exhibit P2 notification issued by the State of Kerala - 1st respondent, bearing SRO No.1002/2010 dtd. 2/11/2010 ; by which powers under clause (f) of sec. 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter called, "T.P. Act, 1882"), was exercised; and in supersession of all the previous notifications, all Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats in the State of Kerala were notified for the purpose of the said provision.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, after making an in-depth analysis of the legislative history of the said provision and amendments made thereto, and placing reliance on various judgments, has arrived at the conclusion that the State Government has acted correctly, and it was was not obligated or enjoined by the provision to explain why a particular territory has been either brought in, or excluded from the provisions of sec. 58(f) of the T.P. Act, 1882; and that the decisions are within the policy decision making realm into which the writ Court seldom and rarely enters. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the appeal is preferred.

(3.) The paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that; the finding of the learned Single Judge that the towns mentioned in the original provision, were those which were the hubs of businesses and commercial activities at that time and when the scope of businesses expanded in due time and when ease of doing commercial ventures required to be freed from the fetters of territorial limitations, Governments began to consider inclusion of more and more towns and areas into the fold of Sec. 58(f) of the T.P. Act, 1882; and therefore, it is irrefutable that what governs their minds in doing so is only the financial and commercial importance of such areas, which have to be offered the flexibility under the said provision, is unfounded and an outcome of guesswork.