Dismissed

Jose K.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2016WP(C)/8419/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions seeking directions to respondents to assess property damage at Kodakara village and disburse compensation under Government Order dated 19/08/2014 were dismissed as petitioners had already received an award from the Adalat and claimed a special package not applicable to them.

What did the court decide?

Directions to assess damage and disburse compensation under Government Order dated 19/08/2014 were denied.

Jose K.T Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/21ST SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8419 of 2015 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSE K.T., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KALLIYATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHASSI NAGAR, KANAKAMALA P.O. KODAKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, 680001.

¶12

3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION, CHEVARAMPANAM, KOZHIKODE, 673017.

¶13

4. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, M/S.PGCIL CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE

¶14

400/220 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKKARA, KOCHI, 683565.

¶15

R1-3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT LILLY.K.T. R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2016,ALONG WITH.WPC NO 8743/2015. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 8419 of 2015 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

----------------------EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/03/2011. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/04/2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P. (ELECTRICITY) 534/2012 DATED 12/07/2014.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DRAWAL OF LINE.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/05/2014 IN W.P.(C)22382/2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)27/2014 (PD) DATED 19/08/2014.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K.V.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.8419 & 8743 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 12^th day of August 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

In these writ petitions, petitioners have approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to assess the damage caused to the petitioners' property situated in Kodakara village and to disburse the compensation amount as per Government Order dated 19/08/2014, within a time frame.

¶34

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent in W.P.C.No.8419 of 2015 inter alia stating that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the Government Order in so far as the petitioners' claim had been considered and an award had been passed by the Adalath. It is submitted that, as far as the Government Order dated 19/08/2014 is concerned, the Government have accorded sanction for special compensation package especially at Edamon-Kochi, in recognition of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the issue. In so far as it is given as a special case, it cannot be made applicable to any other instances. As far as the petitioners are concerned, their property is situated at Thrissur-Cochin transmission alone and the

¶35

W.P.C.Nos.8419 & 8743 of 2015

¶36

¶37

petitioners cannot get the aforesaid benefit.

¶38

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I do not think that the petitioners have made out a case for interference by this Court. Petitioners' property was situated at Kodakara village and it was a different package altogether. That apart, the claim made by the petitioners was adjudicated by the Adalat and an award has been passed and therefore the package in terms of the Government Order dated 19/08/2014 will not apply to the petitioners.

¶39

In the said circumstances, I do not think that any direction, as sought for in these writ petitions, can be granted. Hence these writ petitions are dismissed.

¶40

(sd/-)

¶41

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶42

jsr

Jose K.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose K.T 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

Sivakumar Vs the Authorised Officer

Transformers and Electricals Kerala Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Nimmi John Chackola Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin

T.Shyma Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S.Jameela Panels & Veneers Vs K.S.E.B

T.P.Balan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board