Disposed

Aparna Mohan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Sept 2016WP(C)/18120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the lack of action on an agreement for negotiation of property acquisition which resulted in the demolition of her property. The Court held that the matter turned on the purchase agreement rather than acquisition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to carry out the covenants contained in the agreement within three months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Aparna Mohan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18120 of 2016 (L) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

APARNA MOHAN, SHREYAS, M.G.ROAD, NADUVILAL, THRISSUR 1. BY ADVS.SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN (MUTHUKULAM) SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶10

2. THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶11

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶12

R2 BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN,SC

¶13

SRI.V.N.HARIDAS

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 18120 of 2016 (L)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 28/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR

¶20

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE ACT DATED 26/6/08

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/6/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/1/2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11/9/2016 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS

¶24

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/2/2016 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C). No.18120 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner is one of the co-owner of property

¶35

admeasuring 6.70 Ares lying in Sy.No.1422 of Thrissur Village, Thrissur Taluk along with her two elder sisters. Property of the petitioner was proposed to be acquired by the 2^nd respondent for widening the M.G.Road at Thrissur as per the notification dated 26.6.2008, which according to the petitioner, is invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, evident from Ext.P2. It is contended that 2^nd respondent was frequently contacting the petitioner and her sisters in connection with acquisition proceedings. However, petitioner and her sisters agreed to the proposal of compromise and they were compelled to execute an agreement on 11.9.2016 with the 2^nd respondent that the property could be acquired for Rs.41,00,000/- per cent and they would not resort to legal remedies, evident from Ext.P4. In Ext.P5, it is stated that, the agreement is valid during the financial year, 2015 - 2016 and the amount would not carry

¶36

W.P.(C). No.18120 of 2016

¶37

¶38

interest. It is further agreed that, the amount as agreed would be paid to the petitioner, on the 2^nd respondent receiving fund from the Government, which would be intimated to the petitioner and sale deed would be executed at the expense of the 2^nd respondent. Petitioner was to hand over vacant possession of the property on or before 14.9.2015. It is further agreed that, if either of the party violates the terms of the agreement, the party who does the violation would be responsible along with the property, evident from Ext.P5.

¶39

Any how, it is admitted that, 2^nd respondent took possession of the property and demolished the compound wall and kitchen and certain other portion of the building, making the building uninhabitable. However, no developments took place and 2^nd respondent did not take any action to complete the terms of agreement nor execute the sale deed. In that regard, petitioner issued Ext.P6 notice to the 2^nd respondent informing that, necessary steps shall be taken before the lapse of the agreement on 31.3.2016. However, no action was

¶40

W.P.(C). No.18120 of 2016

¶41

¶42

taken by the 2^nd respondent. It is in this background, seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the new Act of 2013 since Ext.P5 is an indicative factor to show that, the property of the petitioner is a negotiated purchase and it is in this background Ext.P5 was executed by the petitioner and other title holders of the property in favour of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is not sustainable under law.

¶45

Taking note of the fact situations and arguments made across the Bar, I am satisfied that, the issue raised in the writ petition revolves round Ext.P5 agreement. Admittedly

¶46

W.P.(C). No.18120 of 2016

¶47

¶48

petitioner and other title holders have executed Ext.P5 agreement in favour of the 2^nd respondent. Since the said subject matter is not disputed, I do not think that, petitioner is entitled to get the relief sought for in the writ petition with respect to the acquisition proceedings pertaining to Ext.P2. I also do not find any illegality on the part of the 2^nd respondent in executing Ext.P5 agreement. If the petitioner is aggrieved under any other circumstances, petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Civil Court. However, I make it clear that, in view of Ext.P5 agreement, necessary steps shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent to carry out the covenants contained under Ext.P5 at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶52

smv 28.09.2016

Aparna Mohan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparna Mohan 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

The Managing Committee, Tiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission

Arumughan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

C.P.Manilal Vs the Deputy Tahasildar

Paul Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Philomina @ Ammini Vs the District Collector

Feroke Co-Operative Labour Contract Society LTD.NO.D-2855 Vs State of Kerala