MACA No. 3716/2019; MACA No. 3808/2019 This is a High Court of Kerala judgment arising from two Motor Accidents Claims Appeals (MACA Nos. 3716/2019 and 3808/2019) challenging awards under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in OP(MV) Nos. 325/2016 and 329/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. On 14 June 2015, a public-road collision involving an autorickshaw (RC owner-cum-driver) caused injuries to the claimants, who sought compensation under multiple heads. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded ₹2,70,113 in O.P. (MV) 325/2016 and ₹1,26,778 in O.P. (MV) 329/2016, with 9% interest from the petition date and costs. The appellants challenged several heads of compensation, notably the ‘notional income’ and damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, contending that Ramachandrappa (2011) supports a higher notional income and that evidence should justify any higher earning capacity. The respondents argued that the petitioners claimed only specific amounts and that the Tribunal’s awards were justified. The High Court, per Justice C.S. Sudha, partly allowed the appeals, raising notional income to ₹10,000/month (instead of ₹6,000), and enhancing certain heads of compensation while keeping others intact. The court emphasized careful evidence-based assessment of disability and earning capacity (citing Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar) and held that the loss of earning capacity need not mirror the disability percentage. Enhanced totals: MACA 3716/2019 to ₹2,80,113 and MACA 3808/2019 to ₹1,73,498, with 7.5% interest and costs.
Crl.Appeal No.898 of 2023 This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears Crl. Appeal No. 898 of 2023 filed by Noorudheen, the convicted husband, challenging a Thrissur Sessions Court verdict that found him guilty of murder (Section 302 IPC) and theft (Section 379 IPC) in SC No. 720/2013. The prosecution’s case alleges that the accused enticed the deceased from her home in Beach Colony, Ottayini with promises of marriage, and after the two had intercourse, she refused to return home. Realising she would be a liability, he smothered her to death and buried her body, taking gold ornaments worn by her. The trial court acquitted him of the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, but convicted him of 302 IPC (life imprisonment with fines) and 379 IPC (3 years’ imprisonment). The defense contends the circumstantial evidence is not cogent or complete, highlighting witness credibility concerns, lack of identification parade, and the possibility of alternative explanations. The prosecution argues the chain of circumstances—presence near the scene, recovery of ornaments, exhumation from behind the accused’s house, and a dying declaration-style testimony under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act—sufficiently links the accused. The High Court examines circumstantial-evidence doctrine, the role of an alleged approver, and admissibility of statements, ultimately partially allowing the appeal: upholding the murder conviction (302 IPC) while setting aside the theft conviction (379 IPC).
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) challenging a decree of the Sub Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, in a matter concerning land acquired for widening a road under the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP). The plaintiffs claimed title to about 30 cents of property; 2.44 ares of this land were acquired for widening the Punalur–Poonkunnam road, and compensation for land and the full structure was paid to them. The defendants sought to demolish the structure, arguing that the consent given to demolish the building was for the entire built-up area, covered by Ext. B7 and related documents, to facilitate unobstructed use of the road. The trial court granted a permanent injunction restraining trespass, which the First Appellate Court set aside. The appellants contended that only the acquired 2.44 ares needed demolition, and the rest of the building could not be demolished without explicit agreement. The High Court, while examining admission, framed questions of law under Section 100 CPC and Order XLII. It held that no substantial question of law arose, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The decision emphasizes the mandatory nature of framing substantial questions of law for a second appeal and upholds the appellate court’s order as correct in its pass. The matter now stands disposed accordingly.
This is aCriminal Miscellaneous Case challenging the common order of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, in discharge petitions connected to CC No.14 of 2009. The accused 1 and 2 (C.K. Sathyanathan and K. V. Jaine) challenge the order that dismissed their pleas to terminate proceedings entirely and to discharge the case, arguing that quashing the prosecution sanction under Section 19 PC Act would render the Special Court functus officio with respect to PC Act offences. The prosecution originally involved offences under the PC Act (Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)) and IPC offences (Sections 120B and 420). The High Court had previously quashed the sanction in W.P.(C) No.1329/2010, and the trial court held that while PC Act proceedings could not proceed, IPC offences would be tried by a Magistrate. The Kerala High Court examines the PC Act’s exclusive jurisdiction for public servants, and whether the entire case can be terminated or only the PC Act part can be severed. It concludes that, although PC Act proceedings are barred, IPC offences must proceed in the proper forum. The Court directs revival of proceedings, returning the final report to CBI for presentation before the appropriate court, and allows all issues including sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to be considered by the trial court, ensuring justice and avoiding letting the accused go free.
WP(C) No. 28461 of 2018 (and connected cases) The batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court, led by C. Mohanan (WP(C) No. 28461/2018) and including numerous KSRTC employees challenging termination orders, arise from the bipartite settlement of 2008 and subsequent Government orders on regularisation. Petitioners, who had been provisional empanelled employees (drivers, conductors, mechanics), claim that many had been regularised under earlier court judgments and government orders, and that KSRTC terminated them in 2018 without due process or opportunity, undermining vested rights. The Government originally permitted regularisation after ten years of service; later orders sought to add a condition of 120 days of duty per year as of 21.12.2011. While the High Court in some instances had upheld earlier judgments permitting regularisation, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 4435-4438/2017 (and related orders) held that the Government could impose conditions for regularisation, including the 120 days duty requirement, and that those conditions bind all employees. The judgment in Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) (2) KLT 258 was reversed to the extent of allowing such conditions. The court emphasised Article 141 and the power under Section 34 of the RTC Act to issue binding instructions, while also recognizing the right to audi alteram partem and the need for opportunity before termination. The court ultimately disposed of the petitions with directions for a hearing, verification of service records, and potential regularisation if the twin criteria are satisfied, with pension and other benefits for eligible workers.
CON.CASE(C) NO.2567 OF 2019 This Contempt of Court case arises from willful disobedience allegations of Annexure A1 directions dated 25.02.2019 in W.P.(C) No.20247/2017, following earlier judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.13120/2015 and 2017 matters. The petitioners, a group of retired and serving EPF members (listed as petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 19, 22–30 in the original array), contend that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has not implemented the pension scheme amendments and option rights under the 2014 amendment (G.S.R. 609(E)) and that the directions in Annexure A1 require compliance. The matter traces to the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143–8144 of 2022, which held the 2014 amendment legal and valid, read down certain provisions, extended options, and directed reconsideration strategies under Article 142 of the Constitution. This Kerala High Court Contempt case, after hearing both sides, acknowledged the apex Court’s 2022 directive and directed EPFO to reconsider entitlement for higher pension accordingly. On 25.10.2023, the court closed the contempt petition, while explicitly preserving EPFO’s right to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement in light of the 2022 Supreme Court judgment, and per Annexure A2 guidance. The order thus closes the contempt action but leaves room for appropriate corrective action by EPFO."
CRL.M.C. No. 8860 of 2023 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by the accused (Unnipilla) challenging the proceedings in C.C. No.238/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad, arising from Crime No.1880/2014 of Venjaramoodu Police Station. The petition seeks quashing of the prosecution under the Money Lenders Act (offences under Sections 17 and 18). The prosecution’s case is that the accused advanced Rs.1,00,000 to the husband of the defacto complaint and, despite repayment, subjected the complainant to harassment and demands for more money and blank stamp papers. The petitioner’s counsel contends a settlement has been reached between the parties, supported by affidavits from the victims, and that there is no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing merely on settlement, concedes that a settlement exists. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others and the related precedents (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh), the court held that quashing non‑compoundable offences can be permissible where the dispute is private and settled, subject to the nature of the offences. Ultimately, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner alone in C.C.238/2015. The order reflects a single-judge bench applying the Laxmi Narayan doctrine to private disputes.
This is a Criminal Misc.Some of the details: Muhammadiqbal, accused in CC No.1128/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala, seeks quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in a case alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC. The factual matrix involves 3rd respondentInvests Rs.3.5 lakh in a venture run by the petitioner after entering into Annexure A2 agreement on 21.02.2015, with an understanding that the 3rd respondent would get Rs.10,000 monthly plus 20% of profits, while 80% would go to the petitioner; accounts were to be audited by March 31. The 3rd respondent alleged non-payment of profits and return of the investment, prompting police action and criminal proceedings. The petitioner contended that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC and that learned counsel’s focus on Annexure A2 (a contract) suggests civil remedies for breach rather than a criminal offence. Respondents argued that police filed a final report and substantial sums were invested based on a profit-sharing understanding. The High Court relies on established jurisprudence that not every breach of contract amounts to cheating and that the essential ingredient is deception at inception. After considering authorities like R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, and Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, the court quashed the proceedings under S.482 CrPC, allowing the petition.
The petitioner, a hereditary trustee of TTK Devaswom (a Malabar Devaswom Board controlled temple), challenges Ext.P5, an order dated 14.09.2023 by the Commissioner appointing respondents 6–8 as non-hereditary trustees of TTK Devaswom. The writ petition arises after Ext.P1 notification (10.07.2023) set the disqualification and eligibility criteria for such appointments, and after a prior order in W.P.(C) No. 29279 of 2023 (08.09.2023) directing appointments to be strictly in terms of Ext.P1. The petitioner argues Ext.P5 selects active politicians, contrary to the notification’s conditions and the governing statutory scheme under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Section 39(5), Section 39(2) and Section 58’s scheme-based governance). The court discusses precedent on fair procedure in appointment of non-hereditary trustees, noting that while hereditary trustees need not give concurrence, they must be afforded a fair opportunity to voice their views (not binding, but informative). It cites Sreedharan Nambeesan, Chathu Achan K., Anantha Narayanan and related decisions to emphasize fairness, opportunity to be heard, and alignment with the scheme. The bench disposes of the petition with directions ensuring a reasoned, timely re-consideration of Ext.P8 and Ext.P5- related representations.
CRL.MC Nos.7166 and 7168 of 2023 The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.MC Nos.7166/2023 and 7168/2023) arising from Crime Nos. 912 and 913 of 2020 registered at Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram. The petitioners in CRL.MC 7166 are Saju and Saritha, and in CRL.MC 7168 are Sivadasan, Sanal and Anil. The respondents include the State of Kerala and the victims, namely Anil, Sanal, Sarojini and Sivadasan, among others. The two crimes involve offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 34 (common intention), and in the second case, 506(ii) r/w 34. After registration, the parties settled their disputes relating to property. The accused and complainants are thus parties to the proceedings, though some accused in 913/2020 had died. Both petitions proceeded on the basis of settlement. The learned counsel for the parties and the Public Prosecutor confirmed the settlement. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that continuing with the prosecutions would not serve a public purpose and that the proceedings could be quashed. Accordingly, both petitions were allowed and all further proceedings in CC 684/2020 and CC 683/2020 before the JFCM Perinthalmanna stood quashed against the petitioners.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 9961/2023 and 9901/2023 These two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases challenge the ongoing prosecution against six petitioners in two Ernakulam South Police Station crimes (Crime No.1540/2022 resulting in CC 177/2023 and Crime No.1545/2022 resulting in CC 110/2023). The petitions seek to quash all proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the disputes are private in nature and have been settled, with affidavits from the victims supporting the settlement. The respondents—State represented by the Public Prosecutor and the complainants—express reservations about quashing solely on settlement but concede the dispute is settled. The court cites Supreme Court decisions, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) (5) SCC 688, and the related Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) to outline the governing principles: quashing is permissible for private disputes arising from non-compoundable offences when the entire dispute is resolved; however it is not appropriate for heinous or public-interest offences, or offences under special statutes; and such action should not be taken before investigation concludes. The court emphasizes considering antecedents and conduct of the accused when exercising power under Section 482. After thorough scrutiny, the court holds the dispute private and the settlement genuine, and accordingly allows Crl.M.C. Nos.9961 & 9901 of 2023, quashing all further proceedings in CC Nos.177/2023 and 110/2023 (Crime Nos.1540/2022 and 1545/2022). The order is a common one by Judge P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
WP(C).No. 38356 of 2016 (T) Jilmon John and Jino John filed WP(C) No. 38356 of 2016 challenging Ext.P19, an order dated 17.11.2016 by the Manakad Grama Panchayat permitting a hot-mix bitumen plant on their land. They contended that Ext.P14, which directed reconsideration within one month, must govern the process, and that the Panchayat could not withdraw permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 without sustainable grounds. Their central contention was that the plant did not constitute a “building” under Rule 2(m) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, as it was erected in open air; hence, a building permit or Chief Town Planner’s layout approval under Rule 61 was unnecessary or not applicable, especially since Pollution Control Board had issued consent to establish. They further invoked Janardhanan Nair v. Vijayamma to argue for a temporary installation, insisting that the unit could be temporary pending compliance with rules. The respondents countered by asserting that Rule 61(1) requires a building of a specified plinth area and/or a plot exceeding one hectare, and that the plant, even if temporary in intention, must still comply with permit requirements and layout approvals. The High Court rejected the temporary-unit argument, held that the plant falls within the ambit of “building” under the rules, and dismissed the petition with no costs, upholding Ext.P19.
W.P.(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 07-07-2022, which, as per the Government’s policy, fixes the management quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools (PAHS) at 20% and provides that 10% of seats would be reserved for the community to which the management belongs, on merit, if the management declares the community. The petitioners, managers of PAHS, contend that such an order violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, discriminates against non-delegated or non-declared communities, and infringes the principle that there shall be no management/community quota in private institutions; they also argue that they had a vested expectation of a higher management quota and that CAP (Centralized Allotment Process) already sought to ensure merit, transparency, and uniformity. The respondents defend the policy as a legitimate executive measure to correct historical anomalies created by earlier orders (e.g., 2003/2005 acts) and to safeguard the interests of communities within the management frame, while ensuring merit via CAP. The High Court ultimately held that the 20% management quota is permissible, but struck down the 10% community quota as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15. It directed that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats to be allocated through CAP; admissions already made on declaration need not be disturbed. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, preserving the 20% management quota but eliminating the community quota.
CRL.M.C. No. 3366 of 2023 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.3366 of 2023) arises from Hosdurg Police Station Crime No.1121/2011 and involves eight petitioners/accused seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in relation to multiple cases (C.P. No.54/2021 before the JMFC Hosdurg, S.C.No.501/2021, and S.C.No.488/2020 before Addl. D&SJ Kasaragod). The accused are charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 11.10.2011, they formed an unlawful assembly and attacked respondents with iron pipes, sticks and stones, causing serious injuries. The petition contends for quashing on the basis of an amicable settlement, supported by affidavits from respondents stating no subsisting grievance. The court surveys jurisprudence on quashing, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, State of M.P. v. Deepak, State of M.P. v. Manish, Mohana Kurup, State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh, and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar, and Laxmi Narayan. It reiterates that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash is typically exercised for non‑compoundable offences with private disputes when the entire dispute is settled, but not for heinous offences (e.g., Section 307 IPC) or offences under special statutes (e.g., Arms Act) where public interest is affected. Given the seriousness of the offences, the petitioners’ antecedents, and the societal ramifications, the court declines to exercise the power and dismisses the petition.
WP(C) Nos.13968/2011 & 5828/2012 This consolidated writ petition arises from a Public Interest challenge to governance and administration of cricket bodies in Kerala, notably the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) and its affiliated district associations. The petitioners, including K. Pramod (WP no. 13968/2011) and K.B. Vijayakrishnan and M. Niaz Ahmed (WP no. 5828/2012), allege acts of commission and omission by the 4th respondent (KCA) and its associates, seeking transparency, accountability, and structural reform. They pray for quashing amendments to the KCA bye-laws (Ext-P9), directions to the district associations to conduct elections with proper voting, timely registration and membership decisions, and the publication of a uniform bye-law applicable to all district associations. They further urge inquiries into alleged mismanagement and the prompt publication of by-laws, ongoing league integrity, and remedial measures by the state and national bodies. The respondents contend that remedies lie within the framework established by the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, and that the petition should be evaluated in light of Ombudsman channels rather than merits in a writ petition. The court acknowledges the evolving regime and disposes the petitions, granting liberty to pursue redress through the KCA’s Ombudsman mechanism, while keeping the ongoing oversight through the court’s earlier directions.
This criminal appeal challenges a trial court acquittal of the second respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from a dishonoured cheque given in discharge of a loan by a bank. The Kollam Cooperative Bank, a bank registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, alleged that the accused, a shareholder, availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 and issued Ext. P2 cheque for Rs. 91,195 which bounced on presentation (Ext. P3) due to insufficient funds. The bank asserted that despite Ext. P5 statutory notice, the balance remained unpaid. The trial court acquitted primarily because PW1’s oral testimony showed an outstanding amount of only Rs. 30,000 as of 5.2.2007, disregarding other evidence such as Ext. P8 (statement of account showing Rs. 85,163 as of 28.9.2006) and the prescribed presumptions under the NI Act. The High Court recalls that appellate interference with acquittals is limited and relies on established authorities (Jafarudeen; Rupesh Manger; Rangappa; Kalamani Tex; Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel) to uphold the State’s and bank’s case. The Court finds that the reverse onus under Sec.139 NI Act, triggered after Sec.138’s five ingredients are proved, shifts to the accused, who did not rebut. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the accused is convicted under Sec.138 NI Act and sentenced accordingly, with compensation to be paid to the bank. The Amicus Curiae is commended for assistance."
Arshad, the 2nd accused, seeks regular bail in Crime No.711/2022 of Ayiroor Police Station under NDPS Act sections 22(c), 27 and 29. The prosecution alleged that around 14:58 hours on 13.09.2022, four persons including the petitioner were in possession of MDMA for sale and use near a bus stand waiting shed at Edava; contraband, along with mobile phones, a purse, an Aadhar card and Rs.500, were recovered from the joint possession of the accused. The petitioner, in custody since 13.09.2022, contends his innocence and argues that nothing recovered from his possession warrants diluting the Section 37 rider. The Public Prosecutor counters that the evidence shows joint possession by four persons and that the accused were involved in the sale and possession of narcotics; subsequent investigations allegedly revealed involvement of more accused. The court, examining the mahazar and materials, notes recovery during joint possession and that the arrest was red-handed, indicating complicity of the petitioner. It reiterates that where commercial quantity is involved, the rider under Section 37 NDPS is applicable and must be satisfied by two conjunctive conditions: (i) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) not likely to commit an offence on bail. Applying established jurisprudence, the court concludes there are no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty or to release him on bail, and the bail petition is dismissed.
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging an eviction order. The Rent Control Court had dismissed RC.P.72/2018 on maintainability, while the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge, Vatakara) reversed and ordered eviction on the ground of bonafide need. The Revision Petitioner, Sapna Menokee, contends that the Appellate Authority erred by deciding on merits after reversing a preliminary point without remanding for retrial, and that the Rent Control Court’s order was not properly reconsidered. The Appellate Authority relied on guideline No.5 from Mohammad Ahmad (supra) to reject immunity based on the 2016 rent; the Petitioner argues there is no proof that the 2016 rent represents present and prevalent market rent. The High Court scrutinizes the Appellate Authority’s approach, cites relevant jurisprudence on remand and jurisdiction (Orders LXI Rule 23 CPC and XLI Rule 23 CPC; Constitution Bench discussions; and Kerala appellate authority powers), and ultimately holds that the dismissal/eviction order is unsustainable and must be remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity for both sides to lead evidence. The Revision Petition is allowed, directing remand to the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara for retrial.
WP(C) Nos. 23932 of 2021 and 29749 of 2021 These two writ petitions challenge the legality of parking-fee collection by Lulu Mall at Edappally, Ernakulam. The petitioners contend that mandatory parking space under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules must be provided and that collecting fees for parking amounts to a cart-stand activity requiring a licence, with the further prayer for mandamus to refund the Rs. 20 charged and for inquiry into similar levies across the state. The respondents counter that parking charges are not prohibited by statute, and that licensing regimes govern such collection. The court undertook a detailed statutory reading of the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, noting Rule 2(ba)’s definition of parking space and Rule 20’s duty on building-owners to provide parking, along with sub-rules that require display of parking space, driveways, and area in advertisements. It analyzed when parking can be monetized: basement parking within the mall’s premises is a commercial activity that can be let or charged under Section 475; however, the multilevel parking facility, though giving public parking, is a separate parking-building that must be licensed under Section 475. The court also recognized that the Pay-and-Park concept exists under Section 447 following amendments; it concluded the basement parking-fee collection is legal while charging for the multilevel facility without a Section 475 licence is illegal. The decision thus preserves the owner’s discretion, restricted by licensing rules, and disposes the petitions accordingly.
The petitioner, K.I. Ummer Khan, was allotted 60.450 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 100/1 and 131/4A of Kadungallur Village in the Edayar industrial area to establish an industrial unit. The allotment, made by proceedings dated 1.9.1976, was followed by remittance of land value and commencement of the unit. Subsequently, the petitioner sought assignment of patta for the land and obtained sanction to operate a petroleum retail outlet within the same premises. In 2013 the Government issued G.O.(Rt).No.567/2013/ID sanctioning Patta but limited to the portion of land housing the industrial unit and excluding the petrol pump area. This order was challenged in W.P.(C) No.15452 of 2013, Ext.P2 being the judgment that set aside the order to the limited extent and directed reconsideration. Pursuant to Ext.P2, Ext.P3 ordered Patta for the entire 60.450 cents on the condition that the land not be transferred without prior Government permission. The petitioner, aggrieved by inaction, moved W.P.(C).No.28141 of 2017; Ext.P5 allowed the petition, directing assignment within two months subject to the same non-transfer restriction. Nevertheless, Patta was not issued, leading to contempt and Ext.P6/Ext.P7, the latter containing Clause 12 interdicting mortgaging. The petitioner contended Clause 12 was a punitive, harassing condition and not contemplated by the Rules, violating Article 19(1)(g). The respondents argued that Rule 2(a) defines alienation to include mortgage and that Clause 12, though harsh, aligns with Rule 11 and Appendix II. The judge held that the absolute prohibition against mortgaging under Clause 12 contravenes these provisions and quashed Clause 12 to the extent it prohibits mortgaging. The writ petition was allowed.
