Disposed

Annamma Skaria v. the Executive Engineer, PWD

Kerala HC6 Apr 2011WP(C)/8812/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in an original writ petition by a landowner, held that no detailed fact adjudication was necessary. The Court directed the authorities to follow relevant legal provisions if the property is required for any public purpose, including road widening. The petition was disposed of with these safeguards emphasized without striking down the action on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Court disposed of the petition without adjudicating facts, directing authorities to follow relevant provisions of law and due process if the property is needed for public purpose.

Annamma Skaria Vs the Executive Engineer, PWD — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8812 of 2011(B)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

ANNAMMA SKARIA,AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.SKARIA, AMBALATHINKAL HOUSE, PUNNAKAD MURI & P.O.,MALLAPPUZHASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION,PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

2. MALLAPUZHASSERY PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY BY ITS SECRETARY,MALLAPUZHASSERY.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

R1, R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

svs

¶19

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶20

W.P.(C) No.8812 OF 2011

¶21

Dated this the 6^th day of April 2011

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶24

following prayers:

¶25

i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first and second respondents not to deprive the petitioner of any portion of her property otherwise than in due process of law and also further direct the first and second respondents from demolishing any portion of the petitioner's property otherwise than in due process of law.

¶26

ii) To pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

iii) To award the cost of this petition.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance projected in the Writ Petition is only with regard to the taking over of the land of the petitioner without any recourse as to the relevant provisions of law, in connection with the alleged cause, which is sought to be intercepted.

¶29

Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds

¶31

that no fact adjudication is required in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear that, if the property of the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.8812/2011

¶33

¶34

petitioner is needed for any public purpose including for widening the road, the same shall only be in accordance with relevant provisions of law.

¶35

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶36

vdv

Annamma Skaria v. the Executive Engineer, PWD

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Skaria v. the Executive Engineer, PWD

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

N.Raghavan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

C.G.Thomas Vs the Executive Engineer, Pwd, Pathanamthi

M.K.Gopi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Chavakkad

Georgekutty Vs State of Kerala

C.B.A Sidhique Vs the Chairman and Others

Anil Cherian Raju Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University