SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 64700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE SUB REGISTRAR – Appellant
Versus
M/S. XAVIER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Respondent
WA 800/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 800 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2015 IN WPC NO.30837 OF

2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/respondents 1,2,3 & 5 in W.P.(C):

1 THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -

682 024.

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

1 M/S. XAVIER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ELECTRONICS CITY, PHASE-II, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYC.J.KUNCHERIA.

2 KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KINFRA HOUSE, T.C.NO.31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

BY ADVS.

JOMY GEORGE P.U.SHAILAJAN OTHER PRESENT:

SPL.GP.S.RENJITH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

A. J. Desai, C.J.

&

V.G. Arun, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

W.A.No.800 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------

Dated this the 6th day of March 2024

JUDGMENT

A.J. Desai, C.J.

By way of the present appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, the first respondent i.e. State of Kerala and Officers of the State, who are respondents Nos. 1,2,3 and 5 in the writ petition, have challenged the judgment dated 30/10/2015 by which the learned Single Judge, while accepting the petition filed by the first respondent in the writ appeal, directed the present appellant to register Ext.P2 lease deed dated 10/10/2012 entered into between the respondent No.1, the original petitioner-M/s.Xavier Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship (XIME)- and the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, which had been denied by the State Authority on the ground that the said lease can be registered only on payment of registration fees under Registration Act and stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act.

2. The essential facts are as follows;

The Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KINFRA') is established under the Kerala State Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short) with the objective of establishment of industrial areas, for the organisation of Industrial Growth Centres in the State of Kerala and for setting up infrastructure facilities for industries. For the purpose of setting up infrastructure facilities for industries, the KINFRA has to enter into lease agreements with various agencies and establishments. The parties who enter into such agreements with the KINFRA for the purpose of establishing Industrial Parks/Units/industrial facilities are granted exemption from payment of registration fees as well as the stamp duty payable on the instrument of conveyance based on Exts.P3 and P4 Government Orders dated 08/07/2004.

Under one such lease agreement (Ext.P2) executed by the KINFRA, 2 acres of land was leased out to the original petitioner for 90 years for establishing a business school of international standards in the Hi-tech park at Kalamassery. When the said instrument of conveyance dated 10/10/2012 was presented for registration, it was refused by the Sub Registrar stating that the original petitioner is bound to pay registration charge and stamp duty amounting to Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs. On Ext. P3 and P4 exemption orders being brought to their notice, the authorities took the stand that establishment of a business school will not fall within the exempted activities. Aggrieved, the writ petition came to be filed.

The writ petition was opposed by the State Authorities by filing a counter affidavit.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the provisions of the Keral

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top