Quashed

Vincent Leo Crasta v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jan 2008WP(C)/1006/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed orders rejecting applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Court held that receiving a cheque without protest is no bar, and different land categories under same notification do not invalidate the claim.

What did the court decide?

Orders rejected under Section 28A quashed; Special Tahsildar directed to reconsider applications within three months after hearing petitioners.

Vincent Leo Crasta Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 1006 of 2008(T)

¶6

-----------------------------------------PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

VINCENT LEO CRASTA, S/O. MARIYAM CRASTA, MUKARIGADE, KODIMOOLA, EDNAD POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

V.MADHAVAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KIZHUR KADAPPARAM, P.O.CHANDRAGIRI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THE PETITIONERS ARE REP. BY THEIR P/A HOLDER S.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. SANKARAN VAIDYAR, THALANGARA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD

¶11

SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SMT.O.K.SANTHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), KASARAGOD.

¶17

THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KINFRA), VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

BY GP. SRI BASANT BALAJI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J

¶21

= = = ======== = = = = =

¶22

W.P.(C).No. 1006 OF 2008

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶24

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2008.

¶25

= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = =

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

0.3035 hectors of land owned by the first petitioner and

¶28

0.4047 hectors of land owned by the 2^nd petitioner were acquired by the Government for public purpose. Compensation was awarded. The petitioners did not file their application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter for enhancement. But some other persons whose lands were also acquired for the very same purpose under the same notification filed application under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the court and enhanced in some cases the learned Sub judge awarded enhancement. Thereafter the petitioners filed Exts.P1 and P2 applications claiming benefits under Section 28A of the Act. Those applications were rejected on 3.4.2007 on two grounds. One was that the petitioners received D form cheque without raising any protest. The second ground stated is that the land acquired in the L.A.R. No. 35/1999 and 43/1999 were situated in different survey number and was included in another

¶29

W.P.(C).No. 1006 OF 2008

¶30

¶31

category. The petitioner instead filing applications under Section 28 A(3) of the Act for referring the matter to the Sub Court, filed two petitions to review orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5. Those petitions were dismissed by the Special Tahsildar as evidenced by Ext.P6, on 3.10.2007 on the ground that the order dated 3.4.2007 was passed after considering the relevant aspects and there was no error in it. Challenging Exts.P3 and P6 orders, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

One of the reason stated by the Land Acquisition Officer for rejecting the application under Section 28A of the Act was that the petitioners received a cheque without raising any protest. That may be a ground to reject the application under Section 18 of the Act but not an application under Section 28A. Section 28A does not contemplate a contingency at all. So the rejection of the application stating a reason which is not provided under the statute is illegal. The other ground stated is that land acquired was of different category. In Raghava Poduval vs. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) the learned Single Judge of this court had held that it is not necessary that the land which

¶33

W.P.(C).No. 1006 OF 2008 3

¶34

is the subject matter of the 28A application and the land for which enhancement was awarded need not be the same category. It is further held that if both lands were acquired under the same notification the fact that the lands were classified under different categories is not a ground to reject the application. So, the two reasons stated by the Special Tahsildar for rejecting the application is illegal and able to be quashed.

¶35

In the result, Exts.P3 and P6 orders passed by the Special Tahsildar are hereby quashed. Special Tahsildar is directed to take back Exts.P1 and P2 applications and pass fresh orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall also be given an opportunity of being heard before passing the orders.

¶36

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶37

bkn/-

Vincent Leo Crasta v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent Leo Crasta v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph'a' Camoens @Jerry Camoens Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Thomas Vs Jose

L.Jayaprasad Vs Jayaprakash.C.L.

State of Kerala Vs Pathumma Kunju

Remani Vs Komalam Narayanan

State of Kerala Vs Biju