Disposed

P.Baburajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2015WP(C)/29333/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the change in land acquisition alignment from the approved plan which would affect their properties. The Court directed petitioners to seek a hearing from the competent authority to safeguard their rights before the acquisition is finalized. The petition was disposed of on these directions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file representation before respondent 3 within two months; respondent to dispose after hearing.

P.Baburajan Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/26TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).NO. 29333 OF 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONERS: --------------
1. P.BABURAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.P KUNHIKANNAN, PEEDIKANDY HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O., VADAKARA
2. P. RAGHAVAN, R/A.-DO-
3. T P SOUMINI, D/O.K K GOPI, THEKKE PEEDIKAKANDY, SUMANA , CHOMBALA P.O., VADAKARA
4. K. P. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.RAMAN, MOONNUPOOLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, CHOMBALA, VADAKARA
5. K. N. GOPALAKRISHNAN MANIKYALAYAM, NIRATHARIKATH PARAMBA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, CHOMBALA , VADAKARA
6. K. N. VENUGOPAL, K N C SADANAM, CHOMBALA P.O, VADAKARA
7. P .K. NANU MASTER, RAJEESH VILLA, PEEDIKA KANDY, CHOMBALA P.O. VADAKARA
8. PREMA RAJAN, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE , MUTTUNGAL P.O., VADAKARA
9. JANARDHANAN K, GREESHMAM, MUTTUNGAL P.O., VADAKARA
10. S SUREKHA, D/O.DR T SAHADEVAN, 'SUDARSHANA', CHOMBALA VADAKARA
11. RAJISHA R, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O., VADAKARA
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶7

WP(C).NO. 29333 OF 2012 (N)

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

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

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶12

3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) NHAI, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶13

4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) NHAI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶14

5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,

¶15

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NO2/2175-B, KRISHNA KRIPA , ISWARYA ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-673001

¶16

6. UNION OF INDIA

¶17

REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI-110011

¶18

R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH R5 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. T.J. MICHAIL R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY ADV. N. NAGARESH,ASG OF INDIA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).NO. 29333 OF 2012 (N)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1:-	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD 10/1/2012 FILED BY TH 10TH PETITIONER
EXT.P2:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED LA PLAN
EXT.P3:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED LA PLAN
EXT.P4:-	TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINAL DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
EXT.P5:-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD 16/8/2012

¶24

ADDITIONAL EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION DATED 6.4.2013 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DST

K. HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.29333 of 2012

¶31

- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2015

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioners are owners and in possession of the lands comprised in Re-survey Nos.49/6A, 49/5A, 98/5A, 48/8B1, 48/84, 51/1, 27/3b, 22/7A, 27/4, 98/5A and 98/4

¶34

of Azhiyoor village. According to the petitioners, the properties are made under the acquisition process for the development of National Highway [Kannur -Kuttippuram(N.H. 17] and the authorities have published Section 3(a) Notification and in the said Notification petitioners' properties were also included but, name of the petitioners have not been shown as owners of the properties. Apprehending that properties of the petitioners also would be acquired, they filed Ext.P1 objection before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent has passed an order, but copy of the same

¶35

W.P.(C) No.29333 of 2012

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

has not been served to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners obtained Exts.P2 and P3 approved land acquisition plans, pursuant to the above Notification. The petitioners have also obtained final detailed project report in respect of the above acquisition, under the Right to Information Act. While so, the petitioners have noticed that respondents 3, 4 and 5 started to mark properties of the petitioners also in total violation of Exts.P2, P3 and P4. According to them, the alignment has been changed totally and the same is a fragrant violation from the approved plan, to the detriment of the petitioners. As per the new alignment, more curves have been appeared and too many commercial and residential buildings will be destroyed. Aggrieved by the new alignment, which was made in deviation from Exts.P2, P3 and P4, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P5 representation, before the 4^th respondent. But,

¶38

W.P.(C) No.29333 of 2012

¶39

-: 3 :-

¶40

the 4^th respondent has not passed any order on that

¶41

petition. This is the grievance projected in this Writ Petition.

¶42

Learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent submits that the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the Central Government, a competent authority under Section 3(a) of the National Highway Act, 1956 has been appointed

¶43

for the same and the 5^th respondent at present has no role at all, in the acquisition proceedings and they have been omitted from the acquisition process by the Notification dated 14.08.2014, issued by the Central Government. It is also submitted that the 4^th respondent is not the competent authority under Section 3(a) and the 3^rd respondent is the competent authority.

¶44

Going by the averments in the Writ Petition and

¶45

the arguments at the Bar, I do not find any mala fides or

¶46

W.P.(C) No.29333 of 2012

¶47

-: 4 :-

¶48

arbitrariness in the change of alignment. But, at the same time, I find that the petitioners have a right to be heard, as they will be deprived of the right and possession of their properties by the acquisition. In that view of the matter, petitioners are directed to file a representation before the 3^rd respondent, who is the competent authority under the National High Act, 1956, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and he shall dispose of the said representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard, to the petitioners.

¶49

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- K. HARILAL,

JUDGE

DST

//True copy//

P.A. To Judge

P.Baburajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Baburajan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad Vs the State of Kerala

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs State of Kerala

Mani Vs State of Kerala

Suseela E.R. Vs Idukki District Mini Industrial Estate (Service) Co-Op.Society

M/S.Puliyanmackal Traders Karuvanchal Vs the Chief Manager and Authorised Officer,, South Indian Bank

T.P.Jayaprakasah Vs State of Kerala