Quashed

Jolly, S/O.Balan v. the Special Tahsildar (L&a Division)

Kerala HC23 Jun 2015WP(C)/24114/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed Section 4(1) notifications of 2013 and 2014 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court found the notifications lacked clarity regarding the purpose of acquisition and directed proceedings to be initiated under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Ext.R1(a) and Ext.R1(b) notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Jolly, S/O.Balan Vs the Special Tahsildar (L&a… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/2ND ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 24114 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOLLY, AGED 61, S/O.BALAN PULIKKAL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM CHERAI.P.O., PIN-683514.

¶8

MOHANDAS, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. BALAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM CHERAI.P.O., PIN-683514.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L&A DIVISION) GENERAL, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROADS & BRIDGES), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROADS & BRIDGES) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.

¶15

GOSHREE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY CHAIRMAN, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD ERNAKULAM-682 011.

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.

¶17

M.A. ANTONY, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. ABRAHAM, MAMPILLY HOUSE, CHERAI.P.O. ERNAKULAM-683514.

¶18

R1 -R 4,R 6 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM) R7 BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 24114 of 2013 (L)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

P1.SERIES (3 IN NOS). THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PLYING OF VEHICLES, BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

P2 SERIES (2 IN NOS) THE PHGOTOGRAPH OF THE DWELLING HOUSE AND WORKSHOP OF THE PETITIONERS PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED.

¶25

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWSERS GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶27

P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶28

P6. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

P7. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 15604/2013 DATED 20-6-2013.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶31

EXT.R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 30.12.2013.

¶32

EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION NO.D1/1618/12 DATED 25.1.2014.

¶33

EXT.R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST WRIT PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.420/12 OF MUNSIFF COURT, N. PARAVOOR.

¶34

EXT.R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

Ext.R1(a) notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shows the purpose of acquisition as the construction of Karuthala Bridge. Ext.R1(b) erratum notification merely corrects the survey number of the property proposed to be acquired without altering the purpose of acquisition.

¶39

It is conceded in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the Bridge at Karuthala along Vypeen-Pallippuram State Highway has already been demolished and reconstructed. Senior Government Pleader hastens to add that the acquisition is infact for constructing a road along the side of Karuthala thodu to reach the property of the seventh respondent and others from the Vypeen-Pallippuram road.

¶40

I do feel that Ext.R1(a) notification lacks clarity as regards the purpose for which the acquisition is proposed to be made. I therefore quash Ext.R1(a) and Ext.R1(b) notifications without waiting for a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 especially in view of coming into

¶41

W.P (C) No.24114 of 2013

¶42

force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

¶43

I have not considered as to whether any acquisition for the purpose of construction of a road along the side of Karuthala thodu is vitiated by mala fides owing to the absence of public purpose. That is a matter to be probed into if and when fresh proceedings are initiated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

¶44

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶46

nj.

Jolly, S/O.Balan v. the Special Tahsildar (L&a Division)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jolly, S/O.Balan v. the Special Tahsildar (L&a Division)

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

Deepa K Nair Vs Dr.Ks Radhakrishnan

Bhasi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

K.P.Rajeevan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Sarojini Amma Vs Village Officer

Taiju Vs the Additional District Magistrate

K.S.Binu Vs Assistant Engineer