Disposed

T.Ponnamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016WA/2045/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ appeal challenging a land acquisition notification. Without engaging with the merit of the original petition, the court observed that acquisition proceedings had lapsed because no award was passed and the original writ petition had been dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was closed with the observation that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

T.Ponnamma Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937

¶6

WA.No. 2045 of 2010 ( ) IN OP.21620/1999 -----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 21620/1999 DATED 03-03-2009

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :-

¶8

1. T.PONNAMMA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.THANKAMMA, THENKEPLAVILA KIZHAKKE PUTHENVEEDU, MALAKULANGARA, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., PERUMKADAVILA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, TRIVANDRUM - 695 131.

¶9

ADDL.2. V.VELAPPAN, HUSBAND OF T.PONNAMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT 12/63, KOVIL VILAKOM, MANAVALAN KURICHI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶10

ADDL.3. V.P.SUNITHA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.V.VELAPPAN, RESIDING AT 12/63, KOVIL VILAKOM, MANAVALAN KURICHI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶11

ADDL.4. V.SUNIL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.V.VELAPPAN, RESIDING AT 12/63, KOVIL VILAKOM, MANAVALAN KURICHI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶12

ADDL.5. V.P.SUBITHA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.V.VELAPPAN, RESIDING AT 12/63, KOVIL VILAKOM, MANAVALAN KURICHI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶13

ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 AS PER ORDER

¶14

DTD.7.3.2012 IN I.A.No.80/12.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :-

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶18

WA.No. 2045 of 2010

¶19

2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL L.A.UNIT,

¶20

TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶21

3. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,

¶22

KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶23

4. PERUNKADAVILA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶24

TRIVANDRUM, PERUMKADAVILA P.O., PIN - 695 124.

¶25

5. K.P.JAYAN, S/O.BHAGYANATHAN, JAYA COTTAGE, MARAYAMUTTOM,

¶26

PERUNKADAVILA P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 124.

¶27

6. P.SUNDARAM, PRESIDENT, PERUNKADAVILA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶28

PERUMKADAVILA P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 124.

¶29

7. SHEEBA, W/O.KUMAR,

¶30

RESIDING AT 62(7/70), SALOM NIVAS, 6, VADAKARA, PERUNKADAVILA P.O.,

¶31

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 124.

¶32

8. CHRISTAL SUNIL, RESIDING AT 442 CHRISTAL VILASOM, 9, KULATHUMAL, PERUMBAZHUTHUR, PERUMKADAVILA P.O.,

¶33

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 124.

¶34

R1 - R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR BY SRI.E.S.M.KABEER

¶35

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-022016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶37

W.A. No.2045 of 2010

¶38

Dated this the 2^nd day of February 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Shaffique, J.

¶41

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 3.3.2009 in O.P.No.21620 of 1999 filed by the appellant herein. The original petition was filed challenging the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inter alia contending that there is malafides in the public purpose mentioned in the said notification. The learned Single Judge, after considering the issues, dismissed the writ petition on the finding that necessary enquiry had been made under Sec.5A of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, there is finality with reference to the public purpose mentioned in the notification.

¶42

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the possession of the property still remains with the appellant and that no award has been passed so far and therefore, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. It is also submitted that there was a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 5^th respondent from widening the pathway, which passes through the property of the appellant.

¶43

W.A. No.2045 of 2010

¶44

-: 2 :-

¶45

Be that as it may, since the learned counsel for the appellant submits that acquisition proceedings have not been proceeded after the dismissal of the writ petition and the award has not been passed, we do not think that there is any reason to consider the matter on merit.

¶46

Hence, we close the writ appeal with the observation that the land acquisition proceedings have been lapsed.

¶47

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

J UDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jvt/3.2.2016.

T.Ponnamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ponnamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayakumar.N Vs Ajeer

Asoka Kumar V.C Vs Dr.W.R.Reddy

Judish Vs St.Judes Shrine

K.C.Devassia Vs State of Kerala

G.K.Saila Kumari Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Augustine Vs State of Kerala