Allowed

Dr.P.Arunkumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC20 Feb 2009WP(C)/748/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order of the Land Revenue Commissioner in a land acquisition case. The court directed the Deputy Collector to afford the petitioner, who was working in Bangalore, an opportunity to adduce evidence personally in a fresh hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order quashed. 3rd respondent directed to give petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence in person at the Land Acquisition Officer's office on 26.2.2009 or another assigned date.

Dr.P.Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 748 of 2009(L) ------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

DR.P.A.ARUNKUMAR, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, SUDHAKARA VILASOM, THONNAKKAL P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AT N.I.I.T.T.R. EXTENSION CENTRE, S.J.T.CAMPUS, SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶12

THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)/LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶13

THE SECRETARY, KUMARANASAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CULTURE, THONNACKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶14

THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER OF KERALA, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶15

ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R4

¶16

SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C).No. 748/09.

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETI	TIONER(S)	'EX	HIBITS
P1.	COPY OF	THE	JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 37333/07 OF THIS COURT.
P2.	COPY OF	THE	notice DTD.22.11.08.
P3.	COPY OF	THE	REQUEST DTD.8.12.08 TO R3.
P4.	COPY OF	THE	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.
P5.	COPY OF	THE	ORDER DTD.9.12.08 BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.

Sdk+

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

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

W.P(C).No.748 of 2009

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner's land was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Alleging that he has not been issued with a notice under Section 5A, he approached this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the petitioner under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and to forward his recommendation to the Land Revenue Commissioner. The petitioner is working at Bangalore. The petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice dated 22.11.2008 directing the petitioner to appear for a hearing and adduce evidence in the enquiry to be conducted on 25.11.2008, on 6.12.2008. By Ext.P3 dated 8.12.2008, the petitioner requested the 3^rd respondent for an opportunity to adduce evidence in person in view of the fact that the notice was received after the date of hearing. Ext.P3 was not considered. On the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer without hearing the petitioner the Land Revenue Commissioner issued Ext.P5 order. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs.

¶30

“i) issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 order and quash the same, as regards petitioner.

¶31

ii) direct respondents 3 to 5 to afford petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence to his objections in person and to conduct fresh enquiry under section 5A of L.A. Act and pass fresh orders are

w.p.c.748/09

passed.”

The learned Government Pleader submits that notice was sent by ordinary post on 22.11.2008 and therefore, it is not possible to ascertain whether the same has been served on the petitioner before 25.11.2008. Admittedly the notice has been sent to Bangalore. Notice is dated 22.11.2008. That being so, the petitioner's contention that he received it on 6.12.2008 is very probable. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that as directed in Ext.P1 judgment the petitioner should be given another opportunity to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the recommendation on the basis of which Ext.P5 was passed and Ext.P5 are quashed. The 3^rd respondent is directed to give another opportunity to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioner shall appear before the 3^rd respondent on 26.2.2009 ready with all evidence, for a hearing. The 3^rd respondent shall, if it is convenient to him/her, permit the petitioner to adduce evidence and hear the petitioner on that date. If there is any inconvenience for the 3^rd respondent, he/she shall assign another date for such hearing. Either on 26.2.2009 or on the postponed date, the 3^rd respondent shall hear the petitioner under Section 5A on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent shall forward his recommendation to the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Land Revenue Commissioner (or whoever is in charge of that office) shall

¶36

¶37

w.p.c.748/09

¶38

pass final orders and communicate the same to the petitioner without delay. The 4^th respondent shall also be present before the 3^rd respondent on 26.2.2009 if the 4^th respondent wants to be heard in

¶39

the matter.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

sdk+

¶42

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶43

///True copy///

¶44

P.A. to Judge

Dr.P.Arunkumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.Arunkumar 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

M/S.Mini Muthoottu Mutual Funds Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Incometax

N.C.Gangadharan Vs State of Kerala

Joe I Mangaly Vs the Union of India

Dr.M.Anwar Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Rajamma Vs State of Kerala

Star Enterprises Vs the Regional Jt.Labour Commissioner,Klm