Dismissed

Baby Girija v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 May 2012WP(C)/2969/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition by land acquisition award revenue award recipients against the District Collector, the Court considered whether they could file representations to rectify non-payment of interest on enhanced awards. The petitioners sought redetermination of compensation under Section 28A. The Court rejected the procedural course adopted, holding that the remedy lies under Section 28A(3) and n

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for filing misconceived representations as the proper remedy under Section 28A(3) was not sought.

Baby Girija Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2012/7TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2969 of 2012 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. BABY GIRIJA, AGED 68 YEARS W/O LATE SAHADEVAN, AMRITHMANGALATHU VEEDU PERETHU CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. MARY DASAN, THAMARASSERIL VEEDU, PERETHU CHERRY THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. ABIDA BEEVI, PUNTHALAVILA VEEDU, PERETHU CHERRY THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4. M. YOUNUS KUTTY, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PERETHU CHERRY THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

5. NOORNIMA S, SHAJI BHAVAN, PERETHU CHERRY THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

6. SULBATH BEEVI, PUNTHALAVILA KIZHAKKE VEEDU, PERETHU CHERRY THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

7. KHABEER E, VILAYIL VEEDU, PERETHU CHERRY, THAZHUTHALA P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

8. ISHA UMMA, THATTARAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PERETHU CHERRY THAZHUTHALA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

9. JAMEELA BEEVI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, UMAYANALLOOR CHERRY THAZHUTHALA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

DCS

¶17

WP(C).No. 2969 of 2012 (U)

¶18

10. HAMSATH BEEVI, SUDHEER MANZIL, PERIYAM, THAZHUTHALA P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶19

11. ARIFFA BEEVI, SHANAVAS MANZIL, PERIYAM, THAZHUTHALA P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

12. ISHA KUNJU, VADAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶21

13. VIJAYAMMA, CHIRAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THRIKKOVILVATTOM P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶22

14. SHAHUL HAMEED, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU

¶24

SMT.BINDU GEORGE

¶25

RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶27

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶28

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 013.

¶29

3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LA NO.II, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT KOTTIYAM NOW AT MINI CIVIL STATION KUNDARA-691501.

¶30

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

DCS

¶33

WP(C).No. 2969 of 2012 (U)

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶36

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF JOINT AWARD DATED 26.10.1998 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM IN LAR NO. 112/1990 AND CONNECTED CASES

¶37

EXHIBIT P2: THE COPY OF 28(A) AWARD REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE IST PETITIONER

¶38

EXHIBIT P2(a): THE COPY OF 28(A) AWARD REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER

¶39

EXHIBIT P2(b): THE COPY OF 28(A) AWARD REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE 4TH PETITIONER

¶40

EXHIBIT P2(c): THE COPY OF 28(A) AWARD REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE 5TH PETITIONER

¶41

EXHIBIT P2(d): THE COPY OF 28(A) AWARD REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE 6TH PETITIONER

¶42

EXHIBIT P3: THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2009

¶43

EXHIBIT P3(a): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2010

¶44

EXHIBIT P3(b): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2010

¶45

EXHIBIT P3(c): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2010

¶46

EXHIBIT P3(d) THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2010

¶47

EXHIBIT P3(e): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2010

¶48

EXHIBIT P3(f): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2010

¶49

EXHIBIT P3(g): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2010

¶50

DCS

¶51

WP(C).No. 2969 of 2012 (U)

¶52

EXHIBIT P3(h): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2010

¶53

EXHIBIT P3(i): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2010

¶54

EXHIBIT P3(j): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2010

¶55

EXHIBIT P3(k): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2010

¶56

EXHIBIT P3(l): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 13TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2010

¶57

EXHIBIT P3(m): THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 14TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2010

¶58

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.(C) NO.2969 OF 2012

¶65

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

¶66

Dated this the 28^th day of May, 2012

¶67

J U D G M E N T

¶68

Petitioners made an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the compensation awarded in the light of Ext.P1 award passed in LAR.No.112/1990 and connected cases. Accordingly, Ext.P2 series of awards were passed. The case of the petitioners is that in Ext.P2 series of award they were not granted interest on the enhanced amount including solatium. Therefore the petitioners have filed Ext.P3 series of representations to the 2^nd respondent. In this writ petition their complaint is that orders have not been passed on the representations.

¶69

In my view the course adopted by the petitioners have no sanctity in law. If any person has not accepted the award under Section 28A for any reason what so ever the remedy available to such person is one provided under Section 28A(3). Therefore it is up to the petitioners to seek remedies under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Further Section 28A does not confer any power on the Land Acquisition Officer to review or reconsider the matter once

¶70

WPC.No. 2969/2012

¶71

:2 :

¶72

an award is passed. For these reasons the representations now

¶73

filed are misconceived.

¶74

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶75

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶76

vi/

Baby Girija v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Girija v. State of Kerala

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

A.N.Ramachandran Vs Chottanikkara Gramapanchayath

Abdul Russak Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality and Another

C.K. Thankappan Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Damodara Poduval Vs Special Tahsildar La

Dr. Raju Vs the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath

Kider Muhammed Vs State of Kerala