Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 59027
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
T. VENUGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
KADAKKARAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C)/24846/2022
B.PRAMOD ASWATHI SURESH, BRIJESH MOHAN BIJU G., SC, SIDCO, R.RAJPRADEEP
An outright purchase agreement establishes ownership rights, necessitating fair administrative practices in ownership transfer evaluations.
Headnote:
Ownership - Transfer of Ownership - Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO) - Act Section List - The court discussed the legality of ownership transfer related to government-allotted properties, emphasizing the petitioner's right to ownership under the allotment agreement, highlighted conditions affecting transfer, and mandated fair treatment in administrative decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, operating a motor vehicle body building unit, sought transfer of ownership for a building on land allotted by SIDCO. The transfer was denied due to the absence of a valid title deed despite the petitioner having a legal allotment and agreement.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a transfer of ownership for the building based on the allotment from SIDCO and relevant agreements despite not having a title deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that an outright purchase agreement grants the rights of ownership even without a formal title deed, and that administrative bodies must avoid discriminatory practices in ownership transfers.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed, directing fair consideration of ownership transfer application.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2022 The petitioner is running a Motor Vehicle Body Building Unit in 4.94 Cents of land in Kadakkarapally Village of Cherthala Taluk. The land was allotted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the 3rd respondent- Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO). By Ext.P1, sanction was accorded for allotment of 4.94 Cents of vacant land with a building on outright purchase basis, to the petitioner.
2. Ext.P1 allotment was in the year 2009. The petitioner executed Ext.P2 agreement with the 3rd respondent- SIDCO. The petitioner later submitted Ext.P9 application seeking to transfer the ownership of the building to his name. The existing ownership of the building is in the name of the previous allottee.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he approached respondents 1 and 2 for transfer of ownership of the building, respondents 1 and 2 stated that he has to produce valid title deed in respect of the property to effect transfer of ownership.
4. The petitioner states that the property was allotted to him by a Government owned Company on outright purchase basis. The petitioner obtained ownership of the building as per Ext.P1 allotment order and Ext.P2 agreement. The right, title and possession of the building vest with the petitioner by virtue of a legal allotment and agreement though there are certain conditions attached to allotment, contends the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 will not therefore be justified in refusing transfer of ownership of the building thereon in the name of the petitioner.
5. Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent-
SIDCO submits that a larger extent of land in this area was given by the Government to the SIDCO for the purpose of allotment for industrial units. The Government has not issued Patta in the name of the SIDCO. Nevertheless, keeping in mind the objective of the Company, for industrial development, plots were allotted to eligible persons. The petitioner came into possession of the property when the land was resumed by the SIDCO from the previous owner and was allotted to the petitioner.
6. The Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-
Panchayat would submit that as per the Rules governing transfer of ownership of buildings, a person applying for transfer of ownership shall produce sufficient materials to establish his title. Apart from the allotment letter and Ext.P2 agreement, the petitioner has not produced any documents. At any rate, the application is pending consideration and respondents 1 and 2 would be considering the application in due course of time.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3.
8. The fact remains that 4.94 Cents of land was allotted by the 3rd respondent-SIDCO to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 allotment letter. Ext.P1 allotment letter as well as the terms contained in Ext.P2 agreement would show that the assignment was by way of outright purchase, though the outright purchase is subject to certain conditions stipulated in the agreement. In the case of the petitioner, there is no allegation that he has violated any condition in the agreement. It is submitted at the Bar that the buildings in the lands allotted by the 3rd respondent to eligible industrial units, stand in the name of respective owners of the land. Even the ownership of the building now held by the petitioner was in the name of the previous allottee. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that picking the petitioner alone for a discriminatory treatment by denying change of ownership of the building, may not stand the scrutiny of law.
9. This Court finds that since the application of the petitioner is still pending consideration before respondents 1 and 2, they can take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner, taking into consideration all relevant facts including the fact that the assignment of the land to the petitioner is
