Disposed

Kanathekkeveettil Madhavan v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC9 Jan 2008WP(C)/32001/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inadequate compensation under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming lost interest since original acquisition. Court directed acquisition officer to pay statutory interest from the date of re-determination only, rejecting interest thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed Land Acquisition Officer to pay statutory interest on enhanced compensation from date of re-determination to party within three months.

Kanathekkeveettil Madhavan Vs State of Kerala and Others — 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 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 32001 of 2007(I) --------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-----------------

¶8

KANA THEKKEVEETTIL MADHAVAN, KONA HOUSE, EDAYATHU POST, KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

----------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR.

¶14

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, KANNUR.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(C) NO.32001 OF 2007

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2008

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

--------------------

¶23

Property belonging to the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose. He did not file petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Act. That was allowed and compensation due to the petitioner was re-determined taking into account the judgment passed in L.A.R. No.50 of 1990. According to the petitioner, thereafter he filed a petition under Section 28A(3) of the Act for referring the matter to the Sub Court on the ground that the compensation awarded to him after re-determination was inadequate.

¶24

2. The stand taken by the respondents is that the application filed by the petitioner is time barred. The contention of the petitioner is that the dismissal of 28A application was not communicated to him. But that statement is denied by the State. It is contended that the petitioner was informed that his application under Section 28A(3) was dismissed. I do not find any reason to reject the contention of

¶25

W.P(C) NO. 32001 OF 2007

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

the State that the petitioner was informed about the dismissal of the application. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not awarded interest as per Section 34 of the Act till the date of re-determination. According to him, he is entitled to statutory interest at least till the date of passing of 28A(3) award which includes interest on solatium also.

¶28

3. The Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider this aspect. If no interest on the enhanced compensation was awarded till the date of re-determination, that amount has to be paid. But the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest after the date of re-determination. Respondents shall pay the interest, if any, payable to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is failure to pay the amount, interest shall be paid from today till date payment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Land Acquisition Officer for compliance.

¶29

Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction and observations.

¶30

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶31

vsv

¶32

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶33

===================== M.F.A.

¶34

===================== J U D G M E N T

¶35

TH JANUARY, 2008

Kanathekkeveettil Madhavan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanathekkeveettil Madhavan v. State of Kerala and Others

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

T.M.Sidhique Vs John Jacon

Ganeshan Vs Mamiyil Karunakaran

M.S. Sreekumar Vs Union of India

Sree Laxmy Timber Vs P.(C) K.Mohanan

The State of Kerala Vs Vahabu Kannu Sharaf

K.Chandravalli Amma Vs District Collector