Partly allowed

P.Sasikumar v. District Collector

Kerala HC3 Feb 2017WP(C)/516/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the indifferent attitude of authorities towards their land acquisition proceedings compared to others. The Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioners' pending representation within two months after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the pending representation (Ext. P6) within two months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

P.Sasikumar Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/14TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 516 of 2017 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P. SASIKUMAR, 48 YEARS, S/O. SIVAN NAIR, H-O, BUILDTECH GREENS, MANAPULLI KAVU, KUNNATHUR MEDU P.O., PALAKKAD- 678 013.

¶8

¶9

2. BINDU C.V., 39 YEARS, W/O P. SASIKUMAR V., H-O, BUILDTECH GREENS, MANAPULLI KAVU, KUNNATHUR MEDU P.O., PALAKKAD- 678 013.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD- 678 001.

¶13

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL-I), COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD -678 001.

¶14

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUSSERY WEST VILLAGE, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD - 678 007.

¶15

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 516 of 2017 (L)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.03.2016 IN RESPECT OF FIRST PETITIONER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.03.2016 IN RESPECT OF SECOND PETITIONER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 29.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2016.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 516 OF 2017

¶33

Dated this the 03^rd day of February, 2017

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Government issued Ext. P3 notification under Section 6(1) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, seeking to survey and measure the properties in Block No. 30 of Pudussery West Village in Palakkad District, as a prelude for acquisition to establish an IIT. The properties of the petitioners are also included in the notification. In order to facilitate survey and measurement, several trees were cut and removed and according to the petitioners they have suffered financial loss on account of the same. The respondents have negotiated the land value with other land lords and finalised the proceedings. However, an indifferent attitude is shown to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, petitioners are willing to surrender the property on suitable terms. Since, no action was initiated Ext.P6 representation is submitted before the first respondent, which is pending consideration. The grievance of the

¶36

W.P.(C). NO. 516 OF 2017 2

¶37

petitioner is that neither the property of the petitioner is acquired nor negotiations are done in order to purchase the

¶38

property, whereas others were treated in a different manner. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take on board and consider Ext. P6 representation, in accordance with law, and attain finality to the same, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other interested or affected persons, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶42

DCS

P.Sasikumar v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sasikumar 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

V.N.Sulochana Vs S.Jayakumar

Sunil Thomas Vs Padmanabhan

Mahadevan Vs the District Collector

Dr. Himal Raj Vs State Kerala

Panginikadan Anaiz Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Surendran Vs the Superintending Engineer