Dismissed

R.D.O, Alappuzha v. Bibu Babu Punooran

Kerala HC19 Oct 2010WA/1190/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench dismissed an appeal preferred by government authorities and property owners against a Single Judge's order. The Single Judge had allowed compensation for land acquired under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Bench found no merit in the appeal and upheld the lower court's direction to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Single Judge directing payment of compensation was upheld.

R.D.O, Alappuzha Vs Bibu Babu Punooran — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932

¶7

WA.No. 1190 of 2009()

¶8

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

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34783/2007 Dated 26/02/2009

¶10

.................... APPELLANTS:

¶11

¶12

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K. MEERA

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

¶18

BIBU BABY PUNNOORAN, S/O. BABU PUNNOORAN PUNNOORANS ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶19

SAIBY BABU PUNNOORAN, W/O. BIBU BABU PUNNOORAN, PUNNOORANAS, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶20

BIJU BABU PUNNORAN, S/O. BABU

¶21

J. PUNNOORAN, PUNNOORANS, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BABU J. PUNNOORAN, PUNNORANS, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶22

SUJA BIJU PUNNORAN, W/O.BABU PUNNORAN PUNNOORANS ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BABU J. PUNNOORAN, PUNNOORAN'S ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶23

ADV. MR. P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶24

MR. VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶27

¶28

W. A. No. 1190 OF 2009

¶29

¶30

Dated, this the 19^th day of October, 2010

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Chelameswar C.J.

¶33

Aggrieved by judgment dated 26.02.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 34783 of 2007, the respondents 1 to 3 therein preferred this appeal. The respondents herein are the petitioners 1 to 4 in the above mentioned Writ Petition. They filed the said Writ Petition with the following prayers :

¶34

i. call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 to P4.

¶35

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the compensation prescribed under Section 17 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, for having acquired and taken possession of the petitioners properties under the emergency provisions of the Act.

¶36

iii. cost of this proceedings; and

¶37

iv. such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case

¶38

The appellants claimed that they are the owners of the

¶39

property having an extent of 98.2 Ares, situated in Kynagiri village of Kuttanad taluk with the residential building thereon. The said property was acquired admittedly invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition

¶40

W.A. No. 1190 of 2009

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

Act, 1894. It appears that the possession of the property was also taken, even before the compensation amount is offered to the respondents, invoking the extra ordinary powers under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the full factual details of the Writ Petition in our opinion may not be necessary for the present purpose, as the appellants admitted the fact that the property of the respondents was in fact acquired and possession was taken as alleged by the respondents herein.

¶43

By the judgment in appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the appellants herein to pay compensation to the petitioners (respondents herein) for acquisition of their property within a period of three months. The relevant portion (paragraph 5) of the said judgment reads as follows :

¶44

5 . In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents 1 and 3 to pay compensation to the petitioners for acquisition of their property, within a period of three months from today. The petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation amount and under protest they can seek reference of the matter.

¶45

In view of the undisputed fact that the property of the

¶46

respondents is acquired by the State, we see no reason to interfere with

¶47

W.A. No. 1190 of 2009

¶48

: 3 :

¶49

the judgment in Appeal. The respondents have a constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India not to be deprived of their property without the payment of compensation. The appeal is without any merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶50

J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶52

kmd

R.D.O, Alappuzha v. Bibu Babu Punooran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.D.O, Alappuzha v. Bibu Babu Punooran

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 & Another Vs the Kalpetta Estate Ltd.

Abdul K.Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

U.v.Thomas Vs P.P.Augusty

Thomas George Vs Vinod Kumar,Deputy Superintendent of Pol

M/S.Sivasakthi Engineering & Fabricators Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.

P.Venugopal Vs Dr.Raju Narayana Swamy I.A.S.