Dismissed

Dr.Biju Ramesh v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC15 Dec 2011WP(C)/5537/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a dispute regarding the actual extent of land acquired versus the recorded extent is not suitable for a writ petition. The remedy lies in a civil suit for measurement or by approaching authorities under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition was disposed of without prejudice to these rights.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the civil court or seek relief under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Dr.Biju Ramesh Vs State of Kerala & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 5537 of 2006(H)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

DR. BIJU RAMESH, SUMTHRUPTHI, RAJADHANI BUILDING, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. K. RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION UNIT, RISHIMANGALAM, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT

¶17

AUTHORITY (TRIDA), JAYA MANSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW R4 BY ADV. SRI. K. A. JALEEL, SC., TRIDA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 5537 of 2006(H)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT. P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 971 DTD. 04.06.1996. EXT. P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 995 DTD. 04.06.1996. EXT. P3 COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO. 265/80 DTD. 28.06.1980.

¶25

EXT. P4 COPY OF LETTER NO. S2/3402/05/TRIDA DTD. 02.12.2005 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM R4.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶32

W.P(C) No. 5537 of 2006

¶33

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15^th day of December, 2011.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is the owner of 21.600 cents of land in Sy. No. 2968/2-1 of Vanchiyoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk with buildings thereon. From the same, an extent of 1.89 ares of land was acquired by the 3^rd respondent for widening of the Bakery Junction-Palayam-Airport road. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner got the land measured, it was found that the actual extent taken over was 3.64 ares and not 1.89 ares. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 27762/2005, in which, this Court directed the Chairman of the High Power Committee Capital, Region Development Programme Thiruvananthapuram to consider the representation of the petitioner. By Ext.P4 order, the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority informed the petitioner that the High Level Committee constituted by the Government examined the contentions of the petitioner in detail and found that the contentions are devoid of merit. It is challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶36

Of course, the petitioner would contend that Ext.P4 order is not in accordance with the judgment of this Court. But, that judgment has not been produced by the petitioner here. Whatever that be and whatever be the correctness of Ext.P4 order, it is a stark fact that the question as to whether 3.64 Ares or 1.89 Ares have been acquired from the petitioner cannot be

¶37

W.P(C) No. 5537 of 2006 -: 2 :-

¶38

decided in a writ petition. It can only be decided in a suit, in which the petitioner can get the property measured by surveyors etc. That being so, the petitioner's remedy lies in approaching the civil court for appropriate reliefs. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to that right. Of course, if the petitioner can approach the authorities under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner may do so also.

¶39

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶40

Tds/

Dr.Biju Ramesh v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Biju Ramesh v. State of Kerala & 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

C.Aswathy Vs P.Pradeepkumar

Shoby George Vs Union Bank of India

A.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Regi Jose Vs Kuriakose Padavan

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs B.Premkumar

Manager, H.L.P.S., Malesamangalam Vs State of Kerala and Others