Disposed

Mandal Govindarajan v. District Collector

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016WP(C)/4121/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Special Tahsildar to consider an application for redetermination of land acquisition compensation filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the application for redetermination of compensation filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within six weeks, after affording the petitione

Mandal Govindarajan Vs District Collector — 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 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4121 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANDAL GOVINDARAJAN, S/O.SWAMIKUTTY, MANDAL HOUSE, MAHALAKSHMI KOVIL ROAD, EZHILODU P.O., KANNUR 670 309.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS SRI.K.M.AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR 670 001.

¶11

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A GENRAL), THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 501.

¶12

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 4121 of 2016 (M)

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶16

EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28/11/2014 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT U/S SEC. 28A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT

¶17

EXT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/12/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA

¶18

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

W.P.(C)No.4121 of 2016 M

¶23

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Exhibit P1 is an application preferred by the petitioner invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for redetermination of compensation in respect of a property acquired from him. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P1 within a time frame.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.

¶27

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exhibit P1 application

¶28

WPC 4121/16 2

¶29

and pass appropriate orders thereon, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity for hearing. The petitioner is free to produce a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance.

¶30

P.B.Suresh Kumar, Judge

¶31

tkv

Mandal Govindarajan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandal Govindarajan v. 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.J.Thomas Vs Sobha Kamla Sudarsana Rao and Others

Soosy George Vs Government of Kerala

Sudha Krishna T.K Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Cochin Smart City Properties Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Mr.P.P.Jose Vs M/S. Traders Tower Constructions & Property Developers Pvt.Ltd

Nalupurappattil Peedikayil Umaimath Vs the District Collector , Kannur

M.T.Khadeeja Vs the District Collector