In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court emphasized that lands allotted by the State Government within industrial areas are intended to foster industrial growth. The Court cautioned against adopting a hyper-technical approach that could lead to the cancellation of such allotments, highlighting the importance of focusing on the proper utilization of the land to achieve the intended industrial development.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, referred to the Kerala Allotment of Government Land in Development Areas on Hire Purchase for Industrial Purpose Rules, 1969. They observed that if it is evident that the allotted land is being used for its intended industrial purpose and contributing to industrial growth, the Department should not seek reasons to cancel the allotment. Such actions could undermine the policy objectives of the 1969 Rules.
The case in question involved an appellant who was initially allotted a parcel of land and subsequently sought and received an additional allotment. A respondent challenged this, contending that he had applied for land allotment earlier but was overlooked in favor of the appellant's additional allotment. A single-judge bench of the High Court set aside the appellant's allotment and directed the concerned department to consider allotting land to the respondent. If no land was available, the department was instructed to resume any unutilized land within the industrial area. Following this directive, the department ordered the resumption of 146 cents of land from the 381 cents initially allotted to the appellant. The appellant challenged this order in a writ petition, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal.
The Division Bench noted that the earlier order did not specify the unavailability of other land for allotment. They criticized the department's approach as perverse, stating that it misconstrued the Court's directive. The Court clarified that the earlier judgment had identified a breach in the respondent's priority due to the appellant's allotment and had called for an inquiry into the availability of other land, followed by allotment based on priority. There was no directive to focus solely on the appellant's case.
The Bench further highlighted that the earlier judgment did not contain a specific finding regarding the existence of unutilized land concerning the appellant. Despite this, the department proceeded with the resumption order. The Division Bench clarified that the direction given by the learned Single Judge pertained to the principle of priority and that any action by the department against the appellant should be independent of that context. Therefore, the department's contention that the learned Single Judge had directed the resumption of the appellant's land was deemed incorrect.
This judgment underscores the Kerala High Court's stance that while ensuring the proper utilization of allotted land is crucial, authorities should avoid a hyper-technical approach that could hinder ongoing industrial operations contributing to employment and economic growth. The focus should remain on facilitating industrial development rather than seeking grounds for cancellation of allotments.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.