Petitioner acquired compensation for an entire building after partial land acquisition but later sought to demolish only the portion in acquired land. Court rejected this stand, upholding the respondent's order to demolish the whole building.
The writ petition challenging the order to demolish the entire building is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 416 of 2009(Y)
PETITIONER(S):
LATHIKA RAGHU, MATHENA PARAMBIL, MANJUMMEL, ELOOR.
BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI. THOMAS ANTONY.
GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.R. DEEPA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan, J.
W. P (C) No. 416 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th January, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
A part of petitioner's property was acquired for widening a road. There was a building in the property. Although only a part of the building was acquired in the property acquired, the petitioner opted to get the entire building acquired and received compensation for the same. Consequently, he became liable to demolish the whole building. But after receiving compensation, he took a stand that he will demolish only that part of the building, which stands in the acquired property. This was not acceded to by the National Highway Authority of India for whom the property was acquired. Accordingly, by Ext. P3, they directed the petitioner to demolish the entire building with a warning that if the building is not demolished by the petitioner, the same would be demolished by the National Highway Authority of India, in which case the charges and expenses would be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 order in this writ petition.
I do not think that after having opted to receive compensation for the entire building, the petitioner can now take a stand that he will demolish only that part of the building situated in the acquired property. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who opted for compensation on a building can later claim exemption to demolish only the portion situated in acquired land.
Whether the petitioner is liable to demolish the entire building after choosing compensation for the whole structure.
Whether this writ petition challenging the demolition notice deserves the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lathika Raghu
National Highways, Authority of India
S. Siri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
