Disposed

Ramachandran Pillai v. the District Collector

Kerala HC26 May 2016WP(C)/10354/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the alleged delay in considering an application for redetermination of land compensation. A direction was issued for the petitioner to appear before the Special Tahsildar for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall appear before the third respondent to consider the application for redetermination of compensation after being afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Ramachandran Pillai Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10354 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM VADAKKU, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 009.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 009.

¶12

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,

¶13

L.A.NO. I, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 009.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 10354 of 2016 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24-10-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 28A OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-10-2011 IN LAR NO. 96/1991 OF PRL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6-3-2014 IN WPC NO. 17253/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4-9-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-9-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1-1-2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AWARD DATED 25-11-1988 PASSED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

W.P.(C).No. 10354 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner preferred Ext.P1 application for

¶37

redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the

¶38

Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since there was delay

¶39

on the part of the third respondent in considering the said application, the petitioner approached this Court. As per Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application within two

¶40

months. It is alleged by the petitioner that even after two

¶41

years, the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment has not

¶42

W.P.(C).No. 10354 of 2016 -2-

¶43

been complied with. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the meanwhile, he has shifted his residence to a new place and if proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment is initiated now, he may not get an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. He, therefore, prays for a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext.P1 application after issuing notice to him in his present address.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶45

also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶46

The learned Government Pleader pointed out

¶47

that the petitioner can appear before the third respondent

¶48

on any day convenient to him and that the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 will be initiated only in his presence.

¶49

Having regard to the facts and

¶50

circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of as

¶51

W.P.(C).No. 10354 of 2016

¶52

-3-

¶53

follows:

¶54

i) The petitioner shall appear before the third respondent on 15.06.2016 with all records relating to Ext.P1 application.

¶55

ii) If Ext.P1 application is not already disposed of, the same shall be considered by the third respondent after affording the petitioner an opportunity for hearing.

¶56

The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this

¶57

judgment for compliance before the third respondent.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

P.B. SURESH KUMAR

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

bpr

Ramachandran Pillai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran Pillai v. the District Collector

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

Jayamohan Gopalan Vs M/S.Cochin Star Constructions (Star Homes)

P.V. Shaiju Kumar Vs Addl. District Magistrate, Kasaragod

Kunhipathumma Vs the Village Officer

Dr.U Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Abg Engineering Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

The Alakkodu Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala