Disposed

Kadavan Athika v. the Chief Secretary

Kerala HC24 Jan 2008WP(C)/14133/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged proposed demolition and construction on their property without Land Acquisition Act proceedings. The Executive Engineer contended land was needed for a bridge with NABARD aid, requiring surrender free of cost, and verbal consent had been received. The court disposed of the petition recording the respondent statement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of upon recording the statement of the 3rd respondent.

Kadavan Athika Vs the Chief Secretary — 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

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 14133 of 2007(G)

PETITIONERS:

KADAVAN ATHIKA, W/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

KUNHAMINA, D/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

KADEEJA,

¶12

D/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

ABOOBACKER,

¶14

S/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

AYISHA,

¶16

D/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

MYMOONAH,

¶18

D/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶19

MUHAMMED,

¶20

S/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶21

SULAIKHA,

¶22

D/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶23

W.P.(C) 14133/2007

¶24

NAFEESATHUL MISRI(MINOR), REP. BY HER MOTHER KADAVAN ATHIKA, W/O.LATE NADUVILAKANDI MUHAMMED HAJI, PATTUVAM AMASOM, ARIYAL DESOM, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

¶28

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶30

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROAD DIVISION, KANNUR.

¶31

THE ASST. ENGINEER (BRIDGES SECTION), PAYYANNUR.

¶32

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI.

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WPC.14133/2007

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.P1	A TRUE 9.4.2007.	PHOTOCOPY OF THE	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXT.P2	A TRUE 9.4.2007.	PHOTOCOPY OF THE	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXT.P3	A TRUE 9.4.2007.	PHOTOCOPY OF THE	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXT.P4	A TRUE P	HOTOCOPY OF THE LAW	YER NOTICE DATED 12.4.2007

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. To Judge.

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.14133 OF 2007

¶44

Dated this the 24^th January, 2008.

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents are trying to trespass into the property and demolish a building situated therein, without initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶47

The 3^rd respondent, Executive Engineer, PWD Road Division, Kannur, has filed a counter affidavit contending that the construction of bridge by name, Veelilkkeel Bridge, was undertaken with the financial assistance of NABARD. It was further averred that as per the norms of the NABARD, the land for the construction is to be surrendered free of cost. So, there is no procedure of acquisition. It was further averred that people in the locality had freely surrendered the land and that was verbally given to the Department by Late Sri.N.Muhammed Haji. It was also stated that land of the petitioners is also essential for the construction of approach road, but it was undertaken that the Department will not carry out any construction in their property without the consent of the land owners, and the

¶48

W.P.(C) No.14133/2007

¶49

¶50

construction of the approach road through the above mentioned property will start only after the surrender of the land by the petitioners. It was also stated that demolition of the building and construction through the petitioners land will commence only after getting consent of the petitioners.

¶51

In the view of the statement filed by the 3^rd respondent, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition itself is disposed of, recording the statement of the 3^rd respondent.

¶52

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶53

nj.

Kadavan Athika v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadavan Athika v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Pathumma Kunju

Remani Vs Komalam Narayanan

State of Kerala Vs Biju

John Vs M.a.Youseff

M.K.Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Shameena Vs District Collector,Kollam