Dismissed

C.K.Jinan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC19 Jul 2012WP(C)/5108/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed that the petitioner's remedy for being aggrieved by the Sub Court judgment closing the reference under Section 18 was to file an appeal. Since no appeal was filed, the writ petition for recalculating land value was barred and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The prayers for issuing a writ of mandamus to determine land value and to refer the case for determination were dismissed.

C.K.Jinan Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2012/28TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5108 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.K.JINAN, S/O.C.R.KESAVAN VAIDHYAR, CHANDRIKA BHAVAN, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEPHEW AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.S.MANGAL, S/O.K.C.SUNDARAN, LEELA BHAVAN, GUJARATHI ROAD, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-682 002.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH

¶9

SRI.S.DILEEP SRI.K.S.ROCKEY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶12

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),

¶13

LAND ACQUISITION,INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSSHIPMENT TERMINAL, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683 501.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,

¶17

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-682 024.

¶18

5. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G5 & 6 SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 075.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOE KALLIYATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY,NHAI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

WP(C)NO.5108/2012

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 6/12/2008

¶26

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/7/2009

¶27

P3 COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE SUB COURT DATED 8/9/2010.

¶28

P4 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAID MEETING DATED 18/12/2010

¶29

P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/06/2011 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALONG WITH TWO TABLES SHOWING CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/7/2011 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

R4(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/09/2011 FORWARDED TO THE NHAI HEAD QUARTERS

¶33

R4(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/11/2011 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶34

R4(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAR NO.90/08 DATED 04/06/2010

¶35

R4(D) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAA.NO.651/10 DATED 01/07/2010.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.5108 of 2012

¶41

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2012

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The prayers in the writ petition reads thus:

¶44

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to determine the land value of the acquired land as per Ext.P2 Government Order and decision taken in Ext.P4 meeting and pass an award in accordance with the schedules annexured with Ext.P5 with respect to the acquired land of petitioner.

¶45

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to refer the case with respect to the lands acquired of petitioners for determination of the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, on application made to the Collector by the petitioners within the time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶46

It is seen that after the awards were passed in this case, petitioner made an application for references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, references were made as L.A.R.Nos.73, 74 and 75 of 2008. By Ext.P3, common judgment rendered by the Sub Court, the references

¶47

W.P.(C).No.5108/2012

¶48

: 2 :

¶49

were closed on account of the failure of the claimant to adduce evidence and to substantiate his case. It is thereafter, that

¶50

this writ petition has been filed with the prayers mentioned above.

¶51

In my view, if the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P3 common judgment, his remedy was to file appeal against the said common judgment. He having not done so, it was not open to the petitioner to seek the reliefs sought in this writ petition.

¶52

For that reason, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶54

C.K.Jinan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Jinan v. the District Collector

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

Joby Thomas Vs G.Sreekumaran Nair

Chacko E.C. @ Chakkappan Vs N.Viswambaran, Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu

Akbar Vs Deputy Director

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the Pothukal Grama Panchayath

Tony Thomas Vs the District Collector

Skyline Foundations and Structures Pvt. Vs Chengamanad Grama Panchayath and Others