Dismissed

Achutha Kurup and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC10 Mar 2016WA/639/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ appeal. The court examined whether an acquisition to widen a road serving the entire locality constituted a valid public purpose. It held that it did and found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld.

Achutha Kurup and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others — 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶6

WA.No. 639 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).34960/2009 -------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34960/2009 DATED 25-03-2010

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS :-

¶8

1. ACHUTHA KURUP, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SREEVALSAM, T.C.20/585(OLD), T.C.48/581 HOUSE NO.E-54, SASTHRI NAGAR, EAST KARAMANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. SARASWATHI AMMA, W/O.ACHUTHA KURUP, SREEVALSAM, T.C.20/585 (OLD), T.C 48/581, HOUSE NO.E-54 SASTHRI NAGAR, EAST KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :-

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. V.G.LATHA, SARAVAN, SOORYA GARDENS, NEDUMCADU, KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

5. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR R2 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.), SC SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC R1, R3 & R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-032016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

W.A. No.639 of 2010

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of March 2016

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Shaffique, J.

¶24

This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 25.3.2010 in W.P.(C) No.34960 of 2009, by which, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition.

¶25

The petitioners challenged acquisition of land, which was notified under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Initially, the respondent authorities had invoked the urgency clause, but, later by interference of this Court Sec.5A enquiry was conducted and it was found that the acquisition of land was for public purpose. The petitioners had raised various challenges in between and ultimately, by judgment dated 10.6.2009 in W.P.(C) No.38019 of 2008, this Court had directed the Land Revenue Commissioner to take into consideration of the issue projected by the petitioners and take a final decision.

¶26

W.A. No.639 of 2010

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

Pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court, the Land Revenue Commissioner, by Ext.P8 observed that the acquisition of property was for public purpose. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the aforesaid decision of the Land Revenue Commissioner.

¶29

The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the acquisition of the property was not for a public purpose. According to them, the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation had requested for acquisition of land only for the purpose of helping the private owners of the property, who had converted paddy land into garden land without obtaining any sanction from the Government.

¶30

A perusal of Ext.P8 would indicate that the Land Revenue Commissioner had taken note of the report of the Special Tahsildar (LA General), who was deputed for inspection of the property and had reported that after conducting necessary site inspection, it was found that the objection raised by the petitioners has to be rejected on account of the importance of public interest involved in the acquisition. Apparently, the materials placed on record would indicate that

¶31

W.A. No.639 of 2010

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

Sec.6 Declaration was published, award was also passed, possession was taken as early as on 4.12.2009 and the property was handed over to the Corporation also. Ext.R3(b) is the declaration, which would show that only an extent of 0.80 Hectares of the property was acquired from the petitioner. Ext.R3(d) is the Award passed in the matter. On a perusal of the 'Note to Award', it would clearly indicate that the intention of the Corporation was to widen a two meter road to a 3 meter road. The plan produced in the case also indicated that the extension of the road was not for a private property and the widening of the road was for the purpose of the entire persons in the locality. Under such circumstances, since the acquisition is for public purpose, we do not think that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in not interfering with the acquisition proceedings. Hence, we do not think that we will be justified in interfering with the said judgment.

¶34

Though it is strenuously contended that there is no public purpose behind the acquisition, on a perusal of the materials placed on record would clearly indicate that the

¶35

W.A. No.639 of 2010

¶36

-: 4 :-

¶37

intention behind the acquisition was to widen the road, which is for public purpose.

¶38

Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason

¶39

to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶41

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jvt/15.3.2016

Achutha Kurup and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achutha Kurup and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

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

All Kerala Textile Workers and Staff Federation Hantex Process House Vs P.H Kurian

The South Indian Bank Limited Vs Salavudeheen P.A

N.Vijayakumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

C.N.Raman Namboothiri Vs v.Rajalakshmi

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Jeeva.C.v.

Valsamma Vs District Collector, Ernakulam