Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


LIONS CLUB OF COCHIN EAST v. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT - OP No. 12807 of 2003(Y) [2007] RD-KL 4649 (5 March 2007)


OP No. 12807 of 2003(Y)

... Petitioner


... Respondent


For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :05/03/2007


K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.

O.P.No.12807 of 2003-Y

Dated, this the 5th day of March, 2007


The petitioner, Lions Club of Cochin East, purchased a plot of land, measuring 40 cents, from Greater Cochin Development Authority, the respondent herein, in the year 1983 for the purpose of constructing a Community Hall. The property was purchased under a Hire Purchase Agreement. One of the conditions in the agreement was that in case the respondent is held liable for any ehancement in the compensation which is payable to the owners of the land from whom the lands were acquired, that amount will also be met by the purchasers, like petitioner. That clause is extracted in the Original Petition itself. In this case, the respondent issued Exhibit P5 demand to the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.2,72,880/- as on 29.2.2000 and directed the petitioner to pay that amount before that date. The petitioner did not pay that amount, but the President of the petitioner Club filed Exhibit P6 representation before the respondent to waive that amount. To that letter, respondent O.P.No.12807 of 2003-Y issued Exhibit P7 reply, in which the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs.3,41,152/- as on 31.3.2002. By Exhibit P8 communication, the Secretary of the respondent informed the petitioner that for belated payment interest at the rate of 12% is levied and claimed that amount also. Petitioner filed O.P.No.26706 of 2002 before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders. This Court directed the respondent to quantify the amounts, if any, due from the petitioner and directed the respondent to keep further proceedings in abeyance till a decision is taken in the matter. Respondent issued Exhibit P10 notice to the petitioner asking him to appear for a personal hearing. The respondent issued Exhibit P11 communication also, to which the petitioner sent Exhibit P12 reply. Thereafter the respondent issued Exhibit P13 proceedings stating that the land value due from the petitioner is Rs.2,72,880/- as on 29.2.2000 and in addition to that amount, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It was further stated that though the petitioner was allowed instalment facility, it did not remit any instament. Therefore, by Exhibit P13 the respondent directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.3,73,898/- towards enhanced O.P.No.12807 of 2003-Y land cost dues as on 31.3.2003, which includes interest upto 31.3.2003. Challenging Exhibits P5 and P13, this writ petition is filed.

2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating as to how the land value was calculated. It was also contended that for belated payment, the respondent has to levy interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of realisation. It is contended that the respondent is compelled to pay further amount to the original land owners because of the enhancement in the compensation made by this Court in various Land Acquisition Appeals. It is contended that this was the actual amount the respondent had to pay on account of the enhancement in the compensation awarded to the original land owners from whose possession the land was acquired and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner is bound to pay the proportionate amount. It is contended that this amount was not claimed from the petitioner alone. In fact, such amounts were claimed from all allottees under the Scheme and in case any amount is waived, that will become a precedent and such claims will be made by large number of similarly situated persons, which O.P.No.12807 of 2003-Y will cause huge financial loss to the respondent.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he did not get an opportunity to file objections to Exhibit P13 order issued by the 1st respondent. It is also contended that there is absolutely no justification in claiming interest on the ground that there is delay in payment. It is seen that the petitioner straight away rushed to this Court and filed this Original Petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is only just and proper that in case the petitioner has got any objection regarding any amount claimed in Exhibit P13, they can raise that before the respondent. The petitioner can also raise in its objection regarding the levy of interest and also the rate of interest. If such an objection is raised, that is also a matter for the respondent to consider and take a decision. It is submitted that the amount was not paid only because of the interim order passed in this proceedings and the earlier proceedings. It is also submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in this proceedings, the petitioner has already deposited one-third of the amount claimed in Exhibit P13 and the petitioner is prepared to pay the balance amount. It is submitted that while paying that O.P.No.12807 of 2003-Y balance amount, the respondent may be directed to give credit to the amount already remitted in pursuance of the interim order passed in this case.

4. In this proceedings the disputed questions of fact cannot be considered. It is open to the petitioner to file a statement/objection to Exhibit P13 order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. He shall file the statement/objection along with a copy of this judgment before the respondent, who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of such statement/objection. It is open to the petitioner to deposit undisputed amount also along with the objection. Until the respondent takes a decision in the matter steps to recover the disputed amount shall stand adjourned. The Original Petition is disposed of as indicated above. C.M.P.No.21807 of 2003 shall stand dismissed. K.Padmanabhan Nair Judge vku/-


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.