KOZHIKODE CORPORATION Vs. VARGHESE MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Kozhikode Corporation and its Secretary challenging Exhibit P8 order dtd. 15/11/2012 passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. No. 710 of 2011, whereby the petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed, and the Corporation was directed to reimburse Rs.1,12,612.00, paid against enhanced compensation for the plot allotted, to the first respondent within two months from the date of order, and in case of failure to pay the same within the period above, to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the order till realization from the Corporation.

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The first respondent has purchased a plot bearing No. B-37 in a Jawahar Nagar Housing Scheme launched by the Corporation having an extent of Rs.4.568 cents for a total consideration of Rs.73,063.00. However, due to the enhancement of the compensation by the land acquisition reference court and by virtue of the provisions of the agreement of transfer and transfer deed, first respondent was compelled to pay a further amount of Rs.1,12,612.00. In the meanwhile, the first respondent was constrained to sell the said plot to purchase a property somewhere else. Subsequently, there was a litigation between the Corporation and the allottees of the plot; and ultimately by virtue of a compromise, it was decided not to collect the excess amount. Therefore, the first respondent moved an application for return of an amount of Rs.1,12,612.00 on 23/9/2007, and as per a reply dtd. 1/1/2010, he was informed that the same was under consideration. According to the first respondent, since no action was taken, he filed a petition before the Ombudsman alleging maladministration on the part of the petitioners.

(3.) On the other hand, the petitioner Corporation contended that the first respondent is not entitled to get any benefit of the settlement for the reason that he sold out the land as early in 2003 at a higher value and the benefit should go only to those persons who have the property on the date of settlement. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the delay in filing the petition were also raised.