Dismissed

V.Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC22 May 2015WP(C)/21050/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a tenant of a building acquired by the State for KSIDC, sought release of an undemolished shop room arguing tenant rights. Court held that since compensation was paid to the owner for the entire building, the owner has no rights and the tenant's rights do not exist, leaving fate of the structure to the acquiring authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; tenant not entitled to release of undemolished shop room.

V.Bhaskaran Vs State of Kerala & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 21050 of 2007 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

V. BASHKARAN, S/O. RAMOOTY, JISNA NIVAS, P.O. ERUVATTY, KADIROOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.VIJAYAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAVADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROAD DIVISION, KANNUR.

¶16

5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROAD DIVISION, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

6. P.C. SAFOORA, D/O. ABDUL KHADER, POOKOTH CHEVITUKULATHIL HOUSE, NARAVOOR P.O., KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶18

R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC, R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL & BY SRI.M.PATHROS MATHAI.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rvs.

¶21

WP(C).No. 21050 of 2007 (E)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

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

¶25

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF TH .	E LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY THE
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF TH TO 6TH	E LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 06/07/2002.
EXHIBIT-P3(A)&(B):	TRUE COPIE 22/03/2003 PETITIONER	S OF T AND .	HE RECEIPTS LICENSE FEE DATED PROFESSIONAL TAX PAID BY
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPY THALASSERY	OF THE .	ORDER DATED 19/02/2004 R.D.O.,
EXHIBIT-P5:	TRUE COPY THE PETITI	OF THE ONER BE	REPRESENTATION 07/10/2005 BY FORE R2, R3 AND R5.
EXHIBIT-P6:	TRUE COPY R5 TO THE	OF THE PETITIO	LETTER DATED 02/11/2005 BY THE NER.
EXHIBIT-P7:	TRUE COPY PROJECT EN	OF THE GINEER	LETTER DATED 18/11/2005 BY THE KSIDC TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8:	TRUE COPY BY THE PET	OF THE ITIONER	REPRESENTATION DATED 06/01/2006 R2.
EXHIBIT-P9:	TRUE COPY R3 TO THE	OF THE PETITIO	LETTER DATED 19/05/2006 BY THE NER.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶27

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

¶28

EXHIBIT-R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/11/2005 ISSUED BY SRI.MUHAMMED MANSOOR TO SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, KANNUR.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 21050 of 2007 (E)

¶34

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2015

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Neither the petitioner's counsel nor any of the counsel of the respondents, except the learned Government Pleader, is present for hearing of the matter.

¶37

The petitioner, allegedly a tenant of the building bearing nos. 3/5 and 3/6 of Koothuparamba Municipality, was before this Court claiming release of one of the shop rooms bearing no.3/6 to the petitioner who was in occupation as a tenant. Admittedly, the said buildings were acquired by the State on behalf of the 3^rd respondent. The apprehension of the petitioner is that one of the shop rooms, bearing no.3/6, having not been demolished, the petitioner, as tenant, should be put in possession of the same and any attempt to surrender the same to the 6^th respondent would prejudicially affect the rights of the petitioner as a tenant.

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 21050/2007

¶39

-2-

¶40

The learned Government Pleader submits that acquisition was made and the property acquired along with the building had been handed over to the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'KSIDC' for short).

¶41

A counter affidavit has been filed by the KSIDC in which it is stated that the entire building was taken over by the Government on behalf of the KSIDC and compensation was paid to the 6^th respondent - the owner of the property. The KSIDC had also engaged a contractor to demolish the building and on a complaint being received, it was revealed that one of the shop rooms was not demolished. The reason stated, as is evident from Ext.R3(a), the communication addressed to the KSIDC by the contractor, is the objection raised by the 6^th respondent.

¶42

The 6^th respondent, having obtained compensation for the entire building, cannot claim any right over the building nor can it be said to be in occupation of the 6^th

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 21050/2007

¶44

-3-

¶45

respondent. The facts being so, the petitioner as tenant also does not have any right over the building. Hence, if at all, a building exists in the property as of now, which has been acquired by the 3^rd respondent through the State, and compensation having been paid to the 6^th respondent, the fate of the same shall be at the option of the 3^rd respondent.

¶46

The Writ Petition would stand dismissed.

¶47

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶48

jjj

V.Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala & Others

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

Bhaskaran Vs the District Collector

Ramachandran Vs the District Geologist

Omana Vs the District Geologist

K.Ramachandran Nair Vs Tahsildar,Pathnapuram Thaluk Office

Biju T.C Vs Station House Officer

Ajith Kumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police