The authority's decision to resume and re-allocate land was upheld, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and proper jurisdiction under the relevant rules.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5 ^th day of February, 2025 The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P1 order whereby the entire dispute between the petitioner and the District Industries Centre as well as the 2^nd respondent has been reconsidered afresh in the light of the direction in judgment dated 10.08.2015 in WA No.1468/2014.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company was allotted with 2.50 acres of land on two occasions, i.e., in 2001 and 2002 (1.75 acres + 0.75 acres). The petitioner has executed amended agreement. Thereafter, on receipt of certain applications for allotment, especially from the 2^nd respondent demanding 1 acre as an additional space for his existing unit, an inspection was conducted and found by the 1^st respondent that the petitioner was not utilizing the land allotted to them. At the same time, M/s. Rollmen Industries, owned by the 2^nd respondent, was functioning in its full potential and seeking for additional space. Considering the genuinity of request as well as the non utilization of the land allotted to the petitioner, it was decided to resume 0.75 acres of land from the petitioner, which was lying at the opposite of an internal road. Under such circumstances, out of the 75 cents allotted land to the petitioner, 48 cents was allotted to the Company owned by the 2^nd respondent, i.e., M/s. Rollmen Industries as per proceedings dated 26.10.2007. The petitioner challenged the said order in WP(C) 3102 of 2008 before this Court. By judgment dated 04.12.2012, this Court quashed the resumption order and directed the parties to approach the 1^st respondent for appropriate orders.

3. In compliance with the same, respective parties were heard and considering the plea of the petitioner that he was given permission to mortgage 2.25 acres of land with Kerala Finance Corporation (KFC), taking detailed consideration, the order of resumption of 0.75 acres was cancelled, and was re-allotted to the petitioner as per proceedings dated 05.04.2013. Being aggrieved by that, the 2^nd respondent preferred WP(C) No.10973/2013. By judgment dated 04.08.2014 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to redress the grievance of the petitioner. In the meantime, the status quo as on that date was directed to maintain. Being aggrieved by that the 2^nd respondent preferred WA No.1468/2014. By judgment dated 10.08.2015 the Division Bench disposed of the appeal by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge stating that the 1^st respondent herein shall consider the entire matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, after hearing all the affected parties. In compliance of the said direction, all the affected persons were heard on 30.09.2015 and specific issues were framed.

4. After a detailed examination, all the four issues framed in this regard were answered by the 1^st respondent, wherein it was specifically found that the petitioner could erect the structures, machinery and equipment partially, thereby the Unit has not yet started its functioning. The resumed 48 cents of land was lying opposite to the original land of 1.75 acres and there is an internal road in between these properties. At the same time, the petitioner is having two acres of land which is sufficient for their purpose. 5. It is also found as per Rule 16 of the Land Allotment Rules, the allotted land should be utilized within 16 months from the date of allotment. However, the land resumed and re-allotted to the 2^nd respondent was no way utilized by the petitioner even after lapse of five years. If the allottee cannot utilize the property in the specified period, Director of Industries and Commerce can extend the period for one year. Further extension can be granted only by the Government. The property was allotted to the petitioner in the year 2002. It was not utilized and thereby it was resumed and re-allotted to the 2^nd respondent. The allottee is only eligible for the value of improvements. But the petitioner has not made any improvements