Disposed

Jose v. the Project Manager

Kerala HC8 Jun 2009WP(C)/7659/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala held that proceedings in a writ petition regarding land acquisition and compensation compensation cannot be indefinitely delayed due to controversy over entitlement or quantum. The court discharged the respondents with instructions to pass an award and refer the matter to a civil court within three months, deciding the case without entering into merits.

What did the court decide?

Competent respondents to pass award and refer to civil court within three months from receipt of judgment copy.

Jose Vs the Project Manager — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 7659 of 2009(B)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

JOSE, S/O.PAYYAPPILLY DEVASSY, JUMNA NAGAR, KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SMT.AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE PROJECT MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, 8/1187, ARUMUGHAM COLONY, NHDP, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD DT.(PIN:678 007).

¶14

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NHDP, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. MR.THOMAS ANTONY

¶16

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Rs/

¶19

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J

¶20

........................................... WP(C).NO. 7659 OF 2009 ............................................

¶21

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2009

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner claims that he is a person interested and entitled to compensation in relation to an acquisition for the purpose of a National Highway. The materials on record disclose that there could be controversy as to the entitlement to compensation as also the quantum of compensation. The question of entitlement may have to be decided qua rival parties including the State Government, having regard to the nature of the land and structures that are to be acquired. Whatever that be, the proceedings cannot be indefinitely held on.

¶24

In the result, this writ petition is ordered without entering into merits, but directing that the competent among the respondents will pass the award and also make reference to civil court if needed. Let this be done within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues left open.

¶25

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶26

lgk/9/6

Jose v. the Project Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose v. the Project Manager

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

S.Premkumar and 4 Others Vs Ksrtc

Kunjukunjamma Jacob Vs Ramankary Panchayath

M/S.Planet Group Vs State of Kerala

Albert Jerone Vs State of Kerala

K.T.Sameer Vs Directorate Board

T.Anandan Vs Meenangadi Grama Panchayath