Partly allowed

Shameena v. District Collector,Kollam

Kerala HC24 Jan 2008WP(C)/14697/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged land acquisition for rehabilitating Tsunami victims on the ground that the petitioners' land was not required as local properties were offered. While rejecting the prayer to quash the proceedings entirely, the court directed the respondents to conduct a specific enquiry under Section 5A regarding the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash land acquisition proceedings is rejected. Respondents directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of objections raised by the petitioners wit

Shameena Vs District Collector,Kollam — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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. 14697 of 2007(Y)

PETITIONER:

SHAMEENA,

¶10

SHAMEENA MANZIL, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶11

PREETHA VENU,

¶12

KRISHNA SARAS, ADINADU NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

¶16

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶17

SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,

¶18

LAND ACQUISITION NO.1, KOLLAM.

¶19

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶20

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17526 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WPC.14697/2007

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.3894/99/1 OF OACHIRA SUB REGISTRAR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	TRIE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.3510/06 OF THE OACHIRA SUB REGISTRY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC PROPERTY TAX PAID BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF PUBLICATION IN KERALA KAUMUDI DATED 27.4.2007.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2007 NO.G.O.(RT) No.1301/2007/DMD.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.5.2007.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORTED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 10.6.2007.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 18.4.2007.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. To Judge.

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos.14697 & 17526 of 2007

¶32

Dated this the 24^th January, 2008.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Petitioners are challenging the acquisition of land on the ground that their land is not required for the project. It is averred that to rehabilitate the Tsunami victims, Government had taken steps to acquire the land of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the victims of Tsunami are from Alappad Village, but to rehabilitate them,

¶35

the State is acquiring the land situated in Clappana Village. It is further averred that persons having property in the Alappad Village itself, have offered their properties for the project, and it was found suitable also. In spite of such offers, respondents are trying to acquire the land of the petitioners, that too invoking the urgency clause.

¶36

In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is

¶37

admitted that there were number of offers. But it is stated that price demanded by such owners was very high, and it is not possible to purchase the land spending that much money. The mere fact that somebody makes a tall offer is not a ground to hold that land of the

¶38

W.P.(C) No.14697 & 17526/2007

¶39

¶40

petitioners are not to be acquired for that purpose. It is further stated that for rehabilitating the Tsunami victims, Maharashtra Government Housing Project has offered necessary funds, and for construction of houses, an area of 12 acres of land is urgently required. It is also averred that already five acres of land is obtained free of cost, and for the remaining extent, acquisition proceedings are to be initiated invoking urgency clause. The incident took place during 26^th December, 2004. Maharashtra Government had made an offer to construct houses for the victims of Tsunami on 11.4.2005. So, I am of the view that at least, in the case of the petitioner, the Government can be directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, before proceeding with the acquisition. But I make it clear that I do not find any reason to quash the land acquisition proceedings in toto.

¶41

In the result, the prayer to quash land acquisition proceedings is rejected. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition

¶42

W.P.(C) No.14697 & 17526/2007

¶43

¶44

Act, in respect of the objections raised by the petitioners in these two writ petitions alone. Such an enquiry shall be conducted within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

The writ petitions are disposed of with the above

¶46

observations.

¶47

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

nj.

Shameena v. District Collector,Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameena v. District Collector,Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

Kadavan Athika Vs the Chief Secretary