Disposed

Mary Mathew v. the General Manager

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016WP(C)/1024/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed District Collector to determine compensation for land taken by Southern Railway afresh after hearing. Railway to disburse already determined amount immediately and pay difference within six weeks if found payable.

What did the court decide?

End respondents to determine compensation afresh after hearing; Southern Railway to disburse determined amount immediately and pay difference within six weeks if found payable.

Mary Mathew Vs the General Manager — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1024 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SMT. MARY MATHEW, W/O.LATE M.V. MATHEW, KILIYANTHAL HOUSE, AYYANPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SRI. MOJISH MATHEW, S/O.GEORGE MATHEW, M.M. GARDENS, CHURCH LANDING ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 016.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) SRI.SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHEN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS, CHENNAI PIN 600 003, TAMILNADU.

¶13

2. THE DIVISION RAILWAY MANAGER(WORKS), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVIONAL OFFICE, WORKS BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER(SW), WORKS BRANCH, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM - 692 030.

¶16

5. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011.

¶17

6. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAY, CENTRAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶18

R1-R3 & R6 BY ADVS. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, SC SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

WP(C).No. 1024 of 2016 (C)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED IN THE SUIT DTD 20/11/1992

¶25

P2:-A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEYED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED IN THE SUIT DTD 20/11/1992

¶26

P3:-A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DTD 26/2/2004 PASSED IN THE SUIT PURSUANT TO THE COMPROMISE ALONG WITH THE COMPROMISE PETITION DTD 23/2/2004

¶27

P4:-A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SRO NO. 823/2003 ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DTD 12/8/2003

¶28

P5:-A TRUE COPY OF DECLARATION PUBLISHED BY THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA 11/5/2004

¶29

P6:-A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES UNDER SEC 9(3) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT GIVEN TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE IST PETITIONER AND THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD 9/6/2005

¶30

P7:-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY SRI.M.V. MATHEW AND THE 2ND PETITIONER TO EXT P6 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, RAILWAYS DTD 30/6/2005

¶31

P8:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONERS DTD 09/02/2010

¶32

P9:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE IST PETITIONER 2/7/2015

¶33

P10:-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29/12/2014

¶34

P11:-A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 10/7/2015

¶35

P12:-A TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION OF VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF LAND MADE BY THE DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE B DEPARTMENT DTD 16/11/2012

¶36

P13:-A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYR NOTICE DTD 14/10/2015

¶37

P14:-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 13/11/2015

¶38

P15:-A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD 8/12/2015.

msv

-2-

-2-

WP(C).No. 1024 of 2016 (C)

¶43

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶49

W.P.(C)No.1024 of 2016

¶50

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2016

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

One cent of land owned by the petitioners was taken possession by the Southern Railway while constructing the platform of Ernakulam North Railway Station. Since the land was made use of otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act then in force, the petitioners have preferred a suit for claiming appropriate reliefs in respect of the same. The suit was compromised based on the offer made by the Southern Railway that they will pay compensation for the land while paying compensation in respect of the remaining land of the petitioners for which land acquisition proceedings have

¶53

W.P.(C)No.1024 of 2016

¶54

¶55

since been initiated. It is not disputed that the said compromise did not work out as the proceedings initiated for acquiring the remaining land of the petitioners was later dropped. The petitioners, in the circumstances, preferred representations before the authorities of the Southern Railway, claiming compensation for the land made use of for its purpose. On the basis of the said representations, the matter was referred to the District Collector, Ernakulam for determination of the market value of the land and the petitioners were directed to follow up the matter with the District Collector. Ext.P14 is the communication issued by the Divisional Railway Manager of the Southern Railway to the petitioners in this connection. Later, the District Collector informed one of the petitioners as per Ext.P15 that the matter has been referred to the Tahasildar, Kanayannur for determination of the market value of the land. The petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P14 and P15.

¶56

W.P.(C)No.1024 of 2016

¶57

¶58

The Southern Railway has filed a statement

¶59

in the matter. In the statement, the contention raised is that the District Collector has determined the value of the land of the petitioners at Rs.12,51,640/- and the same will be disbursed to the petitioners subject to the certification by the concerned Railway Authority.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Railway.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had no notice of the valuation made. He also submitted, relying on Ext.P12, that the valuation made for their land by the District Collector is unreasonably low. Ext.P12 is the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Empowered Committee held on 15.10.2012 to consider the recommendations made by the District Level

¶62

Purchase Committees for acquiring lands for public purposes. Ext.P12 deals with the market value of the

¶63

W.P.(C)No.1024 of 2016

¶64

¶65

properties proposed to be acquired for public projects including the projects of the Southern Railway.

¶66

Having regard to the facts and circumstances

¶67

of the case, especially having regard to the fact that the valuation of the land of the petitioners was made without notice to them, as also Ext.P12 minutes dealing with the market value of the lands around the land of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition on the following lines:

¶68

(i) The fourth respondent shall determine the compensation payable to the petitioners afresh, after affording the petitioners as also the Southern Railway an opportunity for hearing, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶69

(ii) In the meanwhile, the Southern Railway shall disburse to the petitioners the amount already determined by them as due to the petitioners.

¶70

(iii) If any more amounts are found payable to the petitioners by the fourth respondent pursuant to direction (i), the same shall also be paid by the Southern Railway within six weeks thereafter.

¶71

W.P.(C)No.1024 of 2016

¶72

¶73

(iv) The petitioners are directed to produce a certified copy of this judgment before the fourth respondent for compliance.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶76

smm

Mary Mathew v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Mathew v. the General Manager

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

C.I.Varghese Vs the Divisional Forest Officer and Others

Rasiya N.K Vs the Regional Manager

P.R.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Teena Sali Vs the Union of India

Saji George Vs State of Kerala

Mariyam Beevi @ Mariumma Vs State of Kerala