AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ravi, J.
1.The petitioner purchased an extent of 20 cents of land in Sy.No.497/2 of Ernakulam Village from the 1st respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GCDA) as per sale deed No.1460/2016 of SRO, Ernakulam. The land is included in the GCDA Town Planning Scheme for Ernakulam Stadium Bus Stand Scheme and was intended to be developed and/or to sell as buildable sites to persons intending to construct buildings therein. The purchase was after being successful in a public auction conducted on 20.8.2015. The property has been classified as Jenmom dry land in the sale deed. However, when the petitioner paid the land tax for the year 2019-20, the receipt stated the tenure and classification of the land as nilam. The petitioner had purchased the land after paying an amount of Rs.2,48,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.14,88,000/-and registration fee of Rs.4,96,250/-. To the request made by the petitioner for rectification of the errors, she was informed that a vigilance case is pending, and the Vigilance Department has recommended to cancel the sale and retrieve the land from the petitioner. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings to either buy back the land and refund the entire amounts expended by the petitioner with 12% interest per annum or in the alternative to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 submitted by the petitioner seeking the very same reliefs. The original petitioner died and legal representatives have been impleaded as additional petitioners. The writ petition has been amended by adding additional prayers for direction to the 3rd respondent for effecting necessary changes in the basic tax register and for other consequential reliefs.
The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing the report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is stated that even though communications had been initiated for advice regarding the steps to be taken in the matter, nothing has transpired after 2019.
In W.P.(C)No.351/2019 filed by M/s. Blueone Realtors, who had also purchased land from the GCDA, the prayer was for issuance of a building permit for effecting construction on the land. A contention regarding the validity of the sale was put in issue in the said case and this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Corporation to consider the application for building permit finding that no proceedings had been initiated to nullify the sale conducted by the GCDA. It was made clear that if the Government is proposing to take any action against GCDA officials and as against the sale conducted by the GCDA, they are free to do so in accordance with law. The Court also found that there is no necessity for the petitioner therein to regularise the land in terms of Section 27A of Act 28 of 2008, since a Division Bench of this Court has in Antony Jayan v. State of Kerala reported in [2015 (4) KLT 370] taken a view that KLU Order will not apply in respect of lands covered under the Town Planning Scheme. The Court noticed that the GCDA who was the previous owner of the land, had acquired the land for specific purposes under the Town Planning Scheme. It is evident from the facts pleaded in this case that the sale itself was conducted by the GCDA for the purpose of developing the land and constructing buildings. Ext.R1(f) dated 17.2.2021 has been produced which says that M/s.Blueone Realtors should be given compensation and the sale in their favour should be cancelled and the property taken back. Ext.R1(g) is the letter issued by the Secretary to the Government seeking clarification regarding the compensation to be paid. Ext.R1(h) is a letter from GCDA to the District Collector seeking advice as to the legal steps that are required to be taken by the GCDA for cancelling the registration of the sale deed with respect to the properties which have been sold to the petitioner. No action appears to have been taken so far.
Heard Sri S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri Joju Kynady on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Arun Antony, Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt.Deepa V., Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 6.
The judgment in W.P.(C)No.351/2019 has become final and has not been appealed against. The case of the petitioners is similar to the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.351/2019. Even though directions had been issued for cancellation of the sale and to take back the property from the petitioners, the fact remains that nothing has been done for the past six years. The predecessor of the petitioners had parted with a huge amount in 2016 and the petitioners are still not able to utilise the property owing to the proceedings that are said to have been initiated. There is no reason why the petitioners should suffer for mistakes, if any, committed by the GCDA. The GCDA cannot be allowed to have the benefit of the amounts received from the petitioner as sale consideration and by their subsequent inaction affect the rights of the petitioner. The petitioners are also entitled to get a similar treatment as the one which was allowed in the case of the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.351/2019.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to make necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register and to notify the land purchased by the petitioners from the 1st respondent as Jenmom dry land as mentioned in Ext.P1 sale deed and to issue all relevant revenue records in the name of the petitioners with respect to Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioners will also be entitled to prefer necessary applications for building permit which shall be considered by the concerned authorities in accordance with law treating the property as Jenmom dry land. Necessary orders shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that no procedure under Section 27A of Act 28 of 2008 needs to be initiated for regularisation of the land. It is also made clear that the above directions are without prejudice to the right of the Government, if any, to initiate action against the GCDA officials and as against the sale conducted by the GCDA, in accordance with law.