Where an industrial plot agreement provides for the survey and purchase of excess land, the allottee is entitled to regularize such excess land directly upon payment; furthermore, plot applications must be considered based on the rules prevailing at the time of the initial application submission.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C)Nos.4470/2012, 25200/2014 & 9994/2015]

1. W.P.(C) No.4470/2012 & W.P.(C) No.25200/2014 are filed by one Suja, who was allotted 3 Cents of land by the SIDCO in the Industrial Estate, Karakkad. She applied for Plot No.19 having 5.10 Cents and Plot No.49 having 3 Cents of land and as per Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.4470/2012, she was allotted only Plot No.49 having 3.048 Cents of land found on measurement and rejected the allotment of Plot No.19 on the ground that the same is under KFC attachment on account of dues from the previous allottee. The husband of the Petitioner purchased the said 5.10 Cents of land in the auction conducted by KFC. Later, the same was cancelled by the Revenue Authorities finding that the land could not be attached by the KFC as it belongs to SIDCO.

2. W.P.(C) No.9994/2015 is filed by another allottee of land in the very same SIDCO Industrial area, Sri. M.K. Yacob, who was allotted 12.079 Cents of land as per Ext.P1 Order. On measurement of the land allotted to the Petitioner therein, it was found that the land is having a total extent of 16.70 Cents of land. The Petitioner has filed the said Writ Petition seeking direction to the SIDCO to allow the Petitioner to pay the cost of the excess 4.621 Cents of land for including the same in allotment in view of the clause 10 contained in Ext.P1 order authorizing the same.

3. These Writ Petitions were clubbed together under the impression that the Petitioners are having competing claims with respect to the same land. Smt.Suja claims the allotment of 5.10 Cents of land situated near the Plot allotted to her, whereas Sri. M.K. Yacob seeks permission to pay the excess value for the additional land of 4.621 Cents found inside the boundaries of the plot allotted to him. Since the said 4.621 Cents is situated away from the Plot allotted to Smt. Suja, she cannot claim the said land for the expansion of her industry established in Plot No.49. In view of the same, I find that since the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are claiming different lands, there are no competing claims between the Petitioners.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9994/2015 invited my attention to Clause No.10 in Ext.P1 Agreement, which reads as follows:

“10. The area of allotted land shall be surveyed through Taluk Surveyor within one month from the date of receipt of this order so as to confirm the excess/shortage if any on the allotted property. If any excess land is found over and above the allotted area land value at current rates shall be remitted for the same.”

5. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the SIDCO is that when excess land is found in possession of the allottee, the same has to be notified for allotment and in such case, the Petitioner can also participate for the allotment of the said land along with others. I am unable to accept the said contention in view of the aforesaid Clause 10 extracted above. As per the said Clause, the Petitioner can pay the land value for the excess land which is found on measurement. Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.9994/2015 would show that the total extent found on measurement subsequent to the Ext.P1 is 16.70 Cents of land. In such case, in view of Clause 10, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9994/2015 is entitled to remit the value for the excess land found on measurement which is in his possession. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.9994/2015 is disposed of, directing the Respondent No.1 to permit the Petitioner to pay the land value for the excess land of 4.621 Cents found on measurement and regularize the allotment, including the said land, to the Petitioner.

6. With respect to the c