State authorities are required to provide fair compensation and avoid arbitrary actions, particularly in contractual matters.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P10, whereby the claim for rent for the excess space utilised by the Family Court was declined.

2. The petitioner, an advocate by profession, offered the second floor of his building, "Kannayil Complex"—situated near the Additional District Court Complex, Mavelikkara—to house the Family Court. As shown in the plan submitted via Ext.P1, the total area of the second floor was 3,670 sq. ft., with the hall designated for court use measuring 1,640 sq. ft. The 1^st respondent granted administrative sanction, as evidenced by Ext.P2, to take advance possession of the second floor (Building No. MMC/VII/494 C) for accommodating the court. Subsequently, the 6^th respondent (the Assistant Engineer, PWD) fixed the approximate rent at Rs.7/- per sq. ft. The petitioner contends that this rate was unacceptable, as the prevailing market rate in the locality is significantly higher. This objection was formally communicated to the District Judge, Alappuzha, via Ext.P4. Notwithstanding this disagreement, possession of the premises was delivered on 07.06.2013.

3. The actual area required to accommodate the Family Court was 167.89 sq. m. However, the court took possession and control of the entire second floor, which has a total area of 327.07 M2 (inclusive of the excess space). While the Family Court maintained control over the entire floor, the monthly rent was fixed based solely on the required area of 167.89 M², ignoring the additional 159.18 M² actually utilised. As per the rent certificate (Ext.P5) issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, the rent was fixed at Rs.14,878/- per month for building No. MMC/VII/494 C. The certificate specifies that this rent applies to the building situated in Re-survey No. 4/24 (Block No. 85) of Thekkekara Village, effective from 07.06.2013. Notably, while the certificate acknowledges a total plinth area of 327.07 M², it clarifies that the admissible carpet area for office purposes, and thus the basis for the rent calculation, is limited to 167.89 M²

4. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.08.2016, seeking an enhancement of the rent and payment for the total area occupied by the Family Court. Alternatively, the petitioner requested the surrender of the excess area of 159.18 M². Subsequently, via a further representation, the petitioner claimed a revised monthly rent of Rs.28,984/- for the entire area occupied by the Family Court, effective from 01.07.2016.

5. It is further stated that the admitted rent of Rs 14,878 per month for the period from 07.06.2013 to 30.11.2013 was received by the petitioner only on 29.08.2016. Despite the petitioner’s request for rent covering the entire area occupied, the third respondent (Registrar, Subordinate Judiciary) turned down the claim. The refusal to grant the petitioner’s request was based on the communication in Ext.P10 from the Assistant Engineer. In that document, it is stated that the rent certificate issued by the Executive Engineer for the building—which has a total plinth area of 327.07 M²—fixed the rent at Rs.14,878/- per month for the entire space. Crucially, while Ext.P10 acknowledges that only 167.89 sq.m. is officially "permissible" for the Family Court, it notes that rent for the excess area of 159.18 M² can only be disbursed upon receiving sanction from the Administrative Head. Although Exts.P9 and P10 admit that the full 327.07 sq. m. is being utilized, the rent actually fixed corresponds only to the smaller area of 167.89 M² Furthermore, by G.O. (Rt) No. 1027/2016/Home dated 22.03.2016, the government admitted the excess occupation and r