Allowed

G.K.Haridas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2017WA/1221/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal against the dismissal of a petition seeking execution of a final land acquisition compensation decree. The Court held the State must pay forthwith due to the petitioner's critical medical needs and fundamental right to life, setting aside the High Court's Single Judge order.

What did the court decide?

State directed to make payments in accordance with the decree forthwith within two months.

G.K.Haridas Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/26TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶7

WA. No. 1221 of 2017 () IN WP(C).10110/2017

¶8

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.10110/2017 DATED 26-05-2017.)

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

G. K. HARIDAS, S/O. GOPINATHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAILAS, TC 1/61 (2), PEEDIKATTU MURI, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033

¶15

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION UNIT, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

¶16

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

W.A. No.1221 of 2017

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2017

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶25

The writ petitioner is in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.05.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.10110 of 2017. The writ petition was filed with a simple prayer.

¶26

It was submitted that the petitioner's lands were acquired by the State in a land acquisition proceeding under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Being aggrieved by the award, as prepared by the Collector in terms of Section 18 of the Act, he sought a reference to the Sub Court. After hearing the parties, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation substantially. Effectively from what was awarded as compensation by the land acquisition officer fixing the land value at Rs.3,90,665/-, the compensation was enhanced to about Rs.24,17,100/- per Are. This would result in a compensation of over Rs.40 lakhs. The decree was passed in 2013.

¶27

WA.1221/17

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

The Government being reluctant to pay and still an appeal having not been filed, the decree having attained finality, had to be put in execution. It is pending execution for the last four years.

¶30

Tragedy struck the family. The petitioner lost one of his kidneys and his second kidney is extensively damaged. He is in desperate need of money to survive. In the writ petition, he has sought a direction to the Government to honour the decree which had become final on the ground that the State ought to have acted in a non-arbitrary manner, consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge curiously took the view that there are no exceptional circumstances for grant of this extra ordinary remedy and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

¶31

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State.

¶32

The learned Senior Government Pleader very fairly states that if the facts as stated by the writ petitioner are correct then, it would be highly iniquitous to deny him the relief as prayed for. We are of the view that the State being a welfare State has to act in consonance with the Constitutional principles as enshrined in

¶33

WA.1221/17

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. We are conscious of the decision of the Apex Court in M/s.Hindustan Sugar Mills v. The State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1681), wherein the Court observed thus:

¶36

“1.....................It is true and we are aware that there is no legal liability on the Central Government to do so but it must be remembered that we are living in a democratic society governed by the rule of law and every Government which claims to be inspired by ethical and moral values must do what is fair and just to the citizen, regardless of legal technicalities. We hope and trust that the Central Government will not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the assessee for reimbursement of sales tax on the amount of freight by adopting a legalistic attitude.

¶37

xxxx xxxxx xxxxx

¶38

We hopefully expect that the Central Government will not try to shirk its legal obligation by resorting to any legal technicalities, for we maintain that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen, and the State should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen by adopting a legalistic attitude but should do what fairness and justice demand.”

¶39

-:4:-

¶40

WA.1221/17

¶41

Thus, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal. We would, on the facts aforesaid, direct the State to make payments in accordance with the decree forthwith. If the facts, as pointed out by the appellant/writ petitioner, are not correct, the State would be at liberty to move this Court for modification or varying the order passed today. The orders must be complied within two months.

¶42

Writ appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal is set aside.

¶43

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶44

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶45

krj.16/6

G.K.Haridas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.K.Haridas 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs Babu K.P.

Cannore District Bus Operators Association Vs State of Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Vs S Krishnakumar

S.Venugopal Vs Airports Authority of India

Rubber Board, Represented by Its Secretary Vs Dr.Tharian George K

Davis Vs State of Kerala