GEORGE CHUMMAR Vs. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The sword of Damocles" was a real sword hung over the head of Damocles in the court of King Dionysius II in Sicily in the 4th century B.C. Since then, this is an idiom used by all. If the case of the Greater Cochin Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, "GCDA") is accepted, "the sword of Damocles" will be hanging over everyone who purchases properties from GCDA, even if they have obtained the properties through registered sale deeds. The petitioners herein are the allottees of certain plots from GCDA. The plots were assigned in the name of the petitioners by registered sale deeds. Thereafter, notices were issued by the GCDA claiming additional amount. Whether such a claim is sustainable or not is the question to be decided in these cases. Since common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, I will dispose of these writ petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) The 1st petitioner, George Chummar in W.P.(C.) No. 12757/2010 was allotted plot No.49 by the GCDA under the Town Planning Scheme for Thottakkattukara, Aluva (hereinafter referred to as the "scheme") in Survey Nos. 305, 306 and 308. Ext.P1 is the registered sale deed executed in favour of the 1st petitioner on 29/3/1983. The plot No.41 of the scheme was allotted originally to one Kumari Xavier by Ext.P2 registered sale deed executed on 23/11/1982. The 2nd petitioner, Fouziya Aboobacker in the above writ petition purchased the above plot from Kumari Xavier as per Ext.P3 registered assignment deed dtd. 18/2/1992. Subsequent to the registered sale deeds, after several years, the petitioners are served with Ext.P4 and P5 notices by the GCDA, claiming an additional amount of Rs.4,18,664.00 and Rs.3,43,971.00 respectively.

(3.) The petitioner, K.S Abdul in W.P.(C.) No. 21468/2013 purchased plot No.51 of the scheme from GCDA as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed dtd. 12/10/1983. Subsequent to this after about 30 years, the petitioner is served with Ext.P2 and P4 notices by the GCDA, claiming an additional amount. In W.P. (C.) No. 27050/2011, the 2nd petitioner, K.S Gopalakrishnan died pending the writ petition. His legal heir was impleaded as additional 3rd petitioner. The 1st petitioner, M.V Cherian and the deceased 2nd petitioner were allotted plot Nos. 31 and 54 of the scheme as per Exts.P1 and P2 registered sale deeds dtd. 10/6/1983 and 31/7/1987. Subsequent to this after several years the petitioners are served with Ext.P12 to P14 notices from the GCDA, claiming additional amount. The petitioner, Mary Philip in W.P.(C.) No. 16440/2013 was allotted plot No.36 of the scheme as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed dtd. 20/11/1982. Subsequent to this after 30 years, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice by the GCDA, claiming an additional amount of Rs.3,18,576.00. The petitioner, Dr. P.S. Herbert in W.P.(C.) No. 17911/2010 was allotted plot No. 7 of the scheme. As per Ext.P1 communication, the petitioner was informed that the full cost of the plot was paid and there was an excess amount of Rs.215.31 paid by the petitioner and the same was refunded to the petitioner. The property was assigned to the petitioner based on a registered sale deed. Exts.P2 and P3 are the tax receipts evidencing the payment of tax in the year 1999 and 2009. Ext.P6 is the sale deed. Subsequent to this after several years, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice by the GCDA, claiming an additional amount of Rs.2,80,595.00. The petitioner, G.Krishnakumari in W.P.(C.) No. 25809/2011 was allotted plot No. 37 of the scheme and the property was assigned in the name of the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 sale deed in that writ petition dtd. 10/12/1982. Subsequent to this, after several years, the petitioner was served with Ext.P15 notice by the GCDA, claiming an additional amount of Rs.2,71,968.00.