ABDUL KAREEM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had applied for allotment of land for establishment of a small scale industrial unit. The earlier allotment of the land in favour of the 4th respondent was cancelled by Ext.P1 and the property was resumed by the official respondents. Pursuant to the aforementioned application of the petitioner for allotment of land, he had also submitted Exts.P2 and P3 along with the details of the project. According to the petitioner, he had applied for allotment of 60 cents of land, but the allotment proposed by the official respondents to the petitioner is only 20 cents as per Ext.P4 and thereupon he had submitted Ext.P5 petition requesting to allot 60 cents. The 3rd respondent -General Manager, District Industries Centre, as per Ext.P6, had recommended for allotment of at least 40 cents land to the petitioner and this was accepted by the 2nd respondent -Director of Industries and Commerce, which is evident from Ext.P7. This Court, by Ext.P8 judgment rendered in W.P.(C). No.17536/2013, had directed the Government to finalise the proceedings for the allotment process. Thereupon, by Ext.P9 Government order, the 1st respondent -Government had decided to allot 2.15 acres of land to the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8, and had also alloted 15.88 acres to the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 to the extent it reduced the extent of land proposed to the petitioner, the writ petitioner had preferred Exts.P10 and P11 before the 1st and 3rd respondents. When Ext.P9 was issued proposing to implement the impugned allotment process, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition with the following prayers: "(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same; (ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to allot 40 cents of land to the petitioner to establish his unit as proposed in Ext.P2 and P3 and as suggested in Ext.P6 and P7 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (iii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed with Ext.P12 until Ext.P9 is reconsidered as requested in Ext.P10 by the 1st respondent. (iv) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."

(2.) THE Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 1.4.2014 and this Court had rendered an interim order dated 1.4.2014 in this Writ Petition, which reads as follows: "Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to

(3.) ISSUE notice to other respondents by speed post. submitted byAsthe petitioner as well as party 2. matters stand now, on the basis ofrespondents, a representation the property is directed to be measured. Admittedly, though 2.35 acres of land was allotted to be given to the petitioner as well as party respondents, only 2.15 acres was allotted. The petitioner's complaint is that the deficiency was adjusted towards his allotment by 40 cents and presently, he will get only 20 cents. Prima facie, this appears to be unfair. If at all there is any deficiency in the total extent of land, that deficiency has to be apportioned among all persons depending upon the extent allotted to each of them. Government Pleader is directed to provide instructions regarding the same. Post immediately after vacation. In the meantime, the allotment shall be made only if apportionment is made as mentioned above or else the allotment may be deferred." 3. The official respondents and the contesting respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in this matter.