Dismissed

K.Sreebhagya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016WP(C)/20210/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the acquirement proceedings on the ground that the section 6 declaration was published over a year after the section 4 notification. The court held that the declaration was not invalid as the last notification to the petitioner was published in May 2012, making the April 2013 declaration within time under subsection 6(2).

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's challenge to the acquisition proceedings was rejected and the petition was dismissed against the respondents.

K.Sreebhagya Vs State of Kerala — 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 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20210 of 2015 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

K.SREEBHAGYA,

¶8

"KRISHNA" OPPOSITE IQURA HOSPITAL, PARAMMEL ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-673 009.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶13

3. THE CO-ORDINATOR, KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶14

4. THE KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS, MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶15

5. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.

¶16

6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶17

R1, R2, R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. PRINCY XAVIER R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, S.C

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 20210 of 2015 (A)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT-P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.11.2009 FILED BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ,P.W.D (ROADS), KOZHIKODE, (SIC CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER).

¶24

EXHIBIT-P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2010.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2012 ISSUED UNDER RULE 7(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 24-04-2013.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/04/2015.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.2015.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT SKETCH RECEIVED UNDER THE R.T.ACT

¶30

EXHIBIT-P7(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE HELP OF AN EXPERT.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 02.09.2014.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.20210 of 2015

¶39

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner challenges the proceedings for acquisition of 19 cents of her property in re-survey No.44/9 of Chevayoor Village, Kozhikode Taluk as per Ext.P3 notification issued on 28.4.2012 on the ground that Ext.P4 notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published only on 24.4.2013 and therefore since the same is beyond one year of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) the same is liable to be set aside.

¶42

The 6^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that even though gazette publication in respect of 4(1) notification was on 28.11.2011 as per Kerala Gazette EO 2243 dated 28.11.2011, the said notification was published in Village Office, Nagaram and in the site on 26.5.2012, in the Village Office, Kasaba and in the site on 25.5.2012, in the Village Office, Kachery and in the site on 25.5.2012, in the Village Office, Vengeri and in the site on 26.5.2012 and in the Village Office, Chevayur and in the site of 26.5.2012. As per section 6 (2) of the Act, the time has to be reckoned from the date of the last notification. Petitioner's contention is that the notification itself is liable to be set aside on the basis of proviso (ii) under section 6, which provides that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered

¶43

W.P.(C) No.20210 of 2015

¶44

:2:

¶45

by notification under section 4(1) published after the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1985 shall be made after expiry of one year from the date of notification. However sub section (2) of section 6 of the Act reads as follows:

¶46

Every declaration shall be published int eh official gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶48

Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel for the 4^th respondent. In view of the fact that the last notification with respect to properties of the petitioner was published only on 26.5.2012, Ext.P4 notification which was published on 20.4.2013 does not suffer from any illegality. Learned Government Pleader submits that as the petitioner did not receive the award amount the same has been deposited in the court. The petitioner will be free to take appropriate proceedings to release the compensation.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶51

rkc

K.Sreebhagya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sreebhagya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beeran Vs Shaiju

N.Ramaswamy Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. Eriam Branch

Easwari Amma Vs the Bdo, Harippad & Others

Christinal Jacob & 2 Others Vs State of Kerala & 5 Others

Chinnamanikkom Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation & Anr.