Disposed

Paulose v. National Highway Authority of India

Kerala HC5 Jul 2012WP(C)/1217/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-disbursement of land acquisition compensation. The court held title disputes require civil court adjudication and directed the second respondent to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H of the National Highways Act within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court as contemplated under Section 3H of the National Highways Act within six weeks.

Paulose Vs National Highway Authority of India — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2012/14TH ASHADAH 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1217 of 2011 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PAULOSE, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, CHALIYELIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. YOHANNAN, S/O.KURIAKOSE, CHALIYELIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

¶9

IST PETITIONER, PAULOSE.

¶10

3. SCARIA,

¶11

S/O.VARKEY, 45 YEARS, URUMBIL HOUSE P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶13

SMT.P.R.REENA

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP. BY PROJECT ENGINEER, PROJECT OFFICE PALAKKAD 678002.

¶16

2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (NHDO), CHEMBUKKAVU THRISSUR, PIN-680 020.

¶17

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

¶19

R2, 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAREENA GEORGE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 1217 of 2011 (B)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHBITS

¶25

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.12.2009.

¶26

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NO DUES ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PANANCHERY DATED 21.11.2009.

¶27

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR HIS PROPERTY DATED 27.02.2009.

¶28

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 23.4.2009.

¶30

EXT.P6. COPY OF THE BUILDIG TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 211.12.2009.

¶31

EXT.P7. COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED ON 13.12.2009 IN MALAYALAMANOAMA DAILY.

¶32

EXT.P8. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.2011 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶33

EXT.P9.COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.819/2002 OF OLLUKKARA SUB REGISTRY DATED 30.03.2002

¶34

EXT.P10. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.375/2005 DATED 24.1.2005.

¶35

EXT.P11. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.820/2002 SWS 30.03.2002 EXT.P12. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1312/1996 DATED 15.3.1996. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1027/1997 DATED 04.03.1997.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶37

/ TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE

¶38

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶40

W.P.(C).1217/2011

¶41

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2012

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶44

According to the petitioners, 5.97 cents of land and a building with shop rooms owned by them, which are now comprised in Survey No.204/21 of Pananchery Village, was acquired for widening National Highway-47 from Mannuthy to Valayar.

¶45

The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to disburse the compensation for which the petitioners are entitled. First respondent submits that they have already deposited the compensation due. Second respondent in the counter affidavit has raised a claim that the land in question is a puramboke and that the petitioners do not have title over the property in question. Although

¶46

W.P.(C).1217/11

¶47

¶48

this contention of the second respondent is sought to be contradicted by the petitioners by referring to their title deed, basic tax receipt, possession certificate etc., a controversy of this nature cannot be resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the matter should necessarily be referred to the Principal Civil Court as provided under Section 3H of the National Highway Act.

¶49

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the second respondent to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court as contemplated under Section 3H of the Act. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶51

mrcs

¶52

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Paulose v. National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulose v. National Highway Authority of India

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

Krishnan Nair Vs P.H.Kurian

K.M.Cleetus Vs the Secty.Kottuvally Grama Panchayat

Pullooni Shankaran Vs District Collector

Mr.M.I.Shihabudheen Vs v.M.Shamsudheen

Abdul Majeed Vs the State of Kerala

Bone Meals Indiana Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tharur Grama Panchayath