Allowed

Jabeena Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/9182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that although land acquisition for the Kochi Metro Project occurred after the 2013 Act, the award was passed under the 1894 Act. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to re-determine the compensation under the 2013 Act and pay the petitioner within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner under the 2013 Act and disburse the same within four months from the date of the order.

Jabeena Abraham 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9182 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JABEENA ABRAHAM, D/O.C.V.PAUL, CHENNAKKATT, NECHUPADAM HOUSE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.E.D.GEORGE SMT.K.HASEENA SRI.MANURAJ K.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶12

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.NO.III, VYTTILA-682019.

¶13

4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA METRO RAIL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶14

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 9182 of 2016 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE NO.1/2015 DT 16-3-2015 IN FORM NO.10 MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.1/2015 DT 16-3-2015

¶22

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.443/15/REVE DT 23-1-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶23

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FROM THE SUB COURT ERNAKULAM FOR REFERENCE NO.1/16.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶30

W.P.(C).No. 9182 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

An item of property owned by the petitioner has been

¶34

acquired for the Kochi Metro Project. It is conceded that though the acquisition was after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the award in favour of the petitioner was passed only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to compensation for the land acquired from her in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and she prays for a direction to the respondents to re-determine the compensation due in

¶35

W.P.(C).No. 9182 of 2016

¶36

-2-

¶37

respect of the property.

¶38

A counter affidavit has been filed in this matter on behalf of the third respondent. It is stated that in the counter affidavit that the compensation payable to the petitioner has not been re-determined under the new Act as the rules under the new Act were not framed. It is conceded that Rules have since been framed and the compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the property acquired from her will be re-determined under the new Act expeditiously.

¶39

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner for the property acquired from her for the Kochi Metro Project in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and disburse the same to her, within a period of four months from today. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this

¶40

-3-

¶41

W.P.(C).No. 9182 of 2016

¶42

judgment before the respondents for compliance.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶45

bpr