Disposed

Narayanan Nair K.G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012WP(C)/4034/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of connected writ petitions concerning delayed land acquisition proceedings and category changes in land classification. The Court directed the Special Tahsildar to pass the award within eight weeks, noting that disputes over compensation pendently await the award for reference proceedings under Section 18.

What did the court decide?

It is directed that the third respondent shall pass the Award in these cases as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

Narayanan Nair K.G. 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4034 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

NARAYANAN NAIR K.G., S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, KOZHUVELIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM PO PUTHANCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, BRAHMAPURAM ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT KOZHUVELI (H) PERINGALA P.O., KUMARAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL

¶9

SRI.ANITH JAMES SRI.N.RAGHUNATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶13

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶15

ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, PIN 682030.

¶16

3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)

¶17

KOCHI CORPORATION, VYTTILA-19.

¶18

4. THE DEPUTY LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

¶19

PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE(KARIPAT)SC,COCHIN CORPN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHANMMED SHAFI BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. NO. 4550 OF 2012, WPC. NO. 4551 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

tss

¶23

WP(C) NO.4034/2012

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT-P1:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 18.02.2009.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P2:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DECLARATION U/S 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PUBLISHED IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 19.10.2010.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P3:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID MAHAZAR DATED 14.01.2010.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P4:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 9(3) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IN LAC NO.124/2009.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P5:-A TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 12.03.2010.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P6:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION DATED 28.04.2010 PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICICAL GAZETTE.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P7:-A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN LAC NO.124/2009 DATED 6.05.2011 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶39

W.P.(C)s.4034, 4550 & 4551/2012

¶40

.............................................. Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

These writ petitions are connected and therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶43

According to the petitioners, they owned properties situated in R.S.37/1 and 29/3 of Puthencruz Village. Acquisition proceedings were initiated invoking the urgency clause and possession of the properties were also taken over for the purpose of setting up the Solid Waste Treatment Plant at Brahmapuram.

¶44

Grievance of the petitioners is that although they were paid 80% of the compensation, the Award has not been passed so far. They are also aggrieved by Ext.P7 in W.P.(C).4034/12 and Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)s.4550/12 and 4551/12, notices issued in terms of Rules 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act'), which according to the petitioners, indicate that there is a category change in the

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C).4034, 4550 &4551/12

¶47

categorization of the properties. In sum and substance, what the petitioners need is that the Award should be expeditiously passed and they should get the eligible compensation.

¶48

Of course, the possession of the properties was taken over in a land acquisition proceedings. In such a case, there cannot be any justification for the delay in passing the Award. It was therefore, that this Court passed the interim order dated 12^th April, 2012 requiring the third respondent to pass the Award in these cases. The learned Government Pleader submits that steps are being taken in that behalf.

¶49

Taking note of the above, it is directed that the third respondent in these writ petitions, shall pass Award in these cases as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Insofar as the grievance of the petitioners regarding Exts.P7 and P6 notices referred to above is concerned, in

¶51

W.P.(C).4034, 4550 &4551/12

¶52

¶53

effect what they contend is that by issuing the said proceedings, they are deprived of due compensation that is to be paid to them.

¶54

In my view, once the Award is passed, if petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation awarded, it is upto them to take recourse under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act in which event, it is for them to prove their claim for higher compensation. Therefore, directing that the Award shall be passed in the manner as directed above and leaving it open to the petitioners to get their claim for higher compensation, adjudicated in a reference, these writ petitions are disposed of.

¶55

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

mrcs

¶57

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Narayanan Nair K.G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan Nair K.G. 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs Dr.F.Subbayah

The Muthoot Plaza Airpots Operations Vs Shri R.S. Gujral, Secretary to Government

State Bank of India Vs K.a.Thomas

Nm.Fathima Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Private Bus Operators Association, Mala Unit Vs State of Kerala

Viyani Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs the District Collector