Allowed

Vizhinjam International Sea Port Limited v. G.R. Gopakumar

Kerala HC16 Aug 2013WA/1223/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Single Judge order directing authority to execute sale deed and pay compensation. Court upheld compensation payment deadline; directed return of documents if payment fails. Noted lapse of acquisition proceedings due to no award within two years. Reliance on private negotiation.

What did the court decide?

Direct authority to pay agreed compensation within two months, failing which return title deeds to respondent.

Vizhinjam International Sea Port Limited Vs G.R. Gopakumar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/25TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶7

WA.No. 1223 of 2013 IN WP(C).15063/2013

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15063/2013 DATED 12-07-2013

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN WPC :

¶10

VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT LIMITED FIRST FLOOR, VIPANCHIKA TOWER, NEAR GOVERNMENT GUESTY HOUSE, THYCAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 3 IN WPC:

¶13

G.R. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT GANGA NILAYAM, CHAPPATHU, KOTTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL HARBOUR, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶16

R1 BY ADV.SRI.LEO GEORGE

¶17

R2 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. P.I. DAVIS

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran , J.

¶20

- - - - W.A. No. 1223 OF 2013

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2013

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.B. Suresh Kumar appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶25

The 1^st respondent/writ petitioner

¶26

approached the learned Single Judge putting forth the grievance that no compensation is paid to him though an extent of 15.878 Ares of property came to be notified. Initially a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and later agreed to pay the price for the land by private negotiation by the authorities with the respective owners. In other words, according to the writ petitioner, neither was the compensation paid through the acquisition proceedings nor through private negotiation. Therefore, he must be allowed to deal with the property as they deem fit and the appellant authorities

¶27

W.A. No.1223 of 2013.

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

must return back the title deeds to the respective parties including the petitioners.

¶30

The learned Single Judge, after referring to the correspondence and the decisions which was an outcome of deliberations between the parties, opined that there was no justification in delaying the matter so far as execution of sale deeds and payment of money to the petitioner. Fixing the date as 12.08.2013, the learned Judge directed the appellant authority to execute the sale deed and pay the amount. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.

¶31

Learned counsel representing the appellant authority categorically undertakes that the authorities are ready to pay the amounts to the respondent/writ petitioner as the Committee in charge of the entire process is of the opinion that first the smaller holders have to be paid and later on other owners of the land. For this exercise some time is required and according to him, within next two months the entire process will be completed and no further time will be taken by the authorities beyond two months from today to disburse the amounts to the respondent/writ petitioner.

¶32

W.A. No.1223 of 2013.

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

It is also pertinent to note that though the 4(1)

¶35

Notification followed by 6(1) declaration came to be made, no award within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be passed in this case. Therefore, so far as the acquisition proceedings; it lapses by operation of law. In view of the undertaking by the appellant authorities, we direct the appellant authorities to disburse the amounts payable to the 1^st respondent as agreed between the parties through private negotiation within two months from today, failing which the appellant shall return back the documents to the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent is at liberty to deal with the property as he deems fit.

¶36

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶37

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶38

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶39

ttb/16/08

¶40

W.A. No.1223 of 2013.

¶41

-:4:-

Vizhinjam International Sea Port Limited v. G.R. Gopakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vizhinjam International Sea Port Limited v. G.R. Gopakumar

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

C.Lovidasan Vs Sasidharan

Puthucode Juma-Ath Committee Vs S. Muhammed Hussain

Thomas K.L. Vs State of Kerala

Sheena Prakash Vs Union of India

Mahadevan Nair P.K. Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Mahadevan Nair Vs State of Kerala