Dismissed

Margret Edward v. the District Collector

Kerala HC19 Jul 2016WP(C)/1835/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Special Tahsildar's rejection of a claim for enhanced land compensation. The court held that the application was time-barred and the petitioner failed to substantiate the basis for enhancement due to lack of judgment copies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not deserve relief due to the delay in filing the application and failure to substantiate the claim.

Margret Edward Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2016/28TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1835 of 2006 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MARGRET EDWARD,

¶8

W/O. EDWARD, AGED 56 YEARS, KURUPPUMTHAZCHAYIL,SANATHANAM WARD,

¶9

ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

2. JEREMIO, S/O. MARGRET EDWARD, KURUPPUMTHACHAYIL, SANATHANAM WARD,

¶11

ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

3. JEREENA @ JANEETA, D/O. MARGRET EDWARD, KURUPPUMTHAZHAYIL,

¶13

SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.VALSAMMA KURIAN JOSE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), ALAPPUZHA.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ABHIJETT LESSLI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

WP(C).NO.1835/2006

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28/6/1984.

¶25

P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD DATED 8/1/1986 SIGNED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶26

P3 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17/9/2000

¶27

P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR L.A. ALAPPUZHA DATED 17/6/2002

¶28

P5 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2/8/2003.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.V.ASHA, J.

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

¶35

W.P.(C) No.1835 of 2006

¶36

-------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the Special Tahsildar (LA), Alappuzha by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of land value was rejected. The petitioner's property in Survey No.495/IA 9 C1 was acquired for the purpose of AlleppeyKayamkulam Railway line as per Ext.P1 notification dated 28.06.1984. An award was passed as per Ext.P2 on 08.01.1986 and the petitioner received the amount. Saying that the land was valued at the rate of Rs.6,242/alone, petitioner submitted an application, Ext.P3 on 17.09.2000 claiming that in LAR. No.34/1999 the land value was enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per Are and therefore, the petitioner was also entitled to get enhanced compensation in the light of the judgment in LAR. No.34/1999. But by Ext.P4 letter, the Special Tahsildar rejected her application saying that the judgment which she produced along with the application was one in which

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1835 of 2006

¶40

¶41

interest alone was sought and granted. Moreover it was found that application was submitted only after 1½ months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and hence there was delay. By Ext.P5, the Tahsildar has again informed the petitioner that it was in the judgment in LAR. No.30/1994 in which enhanced land value was granted. Therefore, the petitioner was informed that in order to get enhanced land value the petitioner ought to have submitted application on the basis of the judgment in LAR. No.30/1994 instead of the judgment in LAR. No.34/1999 in which interest alone was granted. Further she was informed that since application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act had to be submitted within a period of three months, time limit for an application with reference to the judgment in LAR. No.30/1994, had already become time barred.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt Pleader.

¶43

The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought for a remand of the application to the District Collector, so

¶44

W.P.(C) No.1835 of 2006

¶45

¶46

as to pursue her claim for enhancement. But neither the judgment in LAR.No.34/1999 nor the judgment LAR. No.30/1994 is made available; even though in paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is stated that a certified copy of the judgment was received on 24.06.2000 and it was produced along with the application Ext.P3.

¶47

In the absence of the judgments relied on by the petitioner, it can only be found that the reason stated in Exts.P4 and P5 cannot be incorrect. Petitioner could not substantiate that the judgment she relied on for enhancement was one in which land value was enhanced. At any rate, it is seen that the petitioner has not filed the application within time. In the above circumstances, petitioner does not deserve any relief from this Court.

¶48

This writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶51

AS/20/7/16

Margret Edward v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Margret Edward 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

K.v.Varkey Vs Monsi.T.S.

B.K.N. Pillai Vs the Tahasildar, Tvpm.

P.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs the Corporation of Kollam & Another

Rekha N.R Vs Shri P.A Santhosh

B.Ramakrishna Pillai Vs the Labour Court, Kollam.

K.S.Jayasimhan Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.