Allowed

Safiya v. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

Kerala HC12 Jun 2017WP(C)/5878/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the inaction of the Land Acquisition Officer regarding her Section 18 reference application. The court directed the petitioner to furnish a copy of her application, after which the matter must be processed as the original and forwarded to the reference court within a month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to furnish copy of application to Special Tahsildar; same shall be treated as original and processed under Section 18 of the Act within one month.

Safiya Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5878 of 2017 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SAFIYA, 38 YEARS OF AGE, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, MELPARAMBA, KALANAD VILLAGE, KALANAD P.O, KASARGOD DISTRICT, REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. KA.SIRAJUDDEEN, 35 YEARS OF AGE, S/O.K.M.ABDULLAKUNHI, KUNTAR HOUSE, KUNTAR, ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN -671 543

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), RAILWAY, KASARGOD-671 121

¶11

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD-671 121

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION), SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, KANNUR-670 001

¶13

*ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED

¶14

*ADDL.R4: THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KASARAGOD.

¶15

*ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 12/6/2017

¶16

R1,R2 & ADDL.R4 BY SPL.GOVT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.M.NAJEEB KHAN, SC, RAILWAYS SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 5878 of 2017 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY PETITIONER INFAVOUR OF K.A. SIRAJUDHEEN. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE AWARD NO. 20/99 DATED 25/6/99 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 2.9.99 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 25.01.2017

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P..ATO JUDGE

sts

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.5878 of 2017

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The Special Tahsilar, Land Acquisition, Kasargod

¶32

is impleaded suo motu in this writ petition as the additional fourth respondent.

¶33

An item of property owned by the petitioner has been acquired for the purpose of Railway under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act'). Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted to the petitioner, she preferred an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act as early as on 2.9.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said application has not been processed and forwarded to the reference court till date. She, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard

¶34

W.P.(C) No.5878 of 2017

¶35

-2-

¶36

in this writ petition.

¶37

The learned Special Government Pleader, on

¶38

instructions, submits that the land acquisition proceedings referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition have been completed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Railway), Kasaragod and by a subsequent order issued by the Government, the office of the said Land Acquisition Officer has been abolished. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the powers of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the said acquisition proceedings are now being exercised, therefore, by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kasargod. It is also pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that the said officer could not trace the application preferred by the petitioner.

¶39

Ext.P3 is the application claimed to have been

¶40

preferred the petitioner for reference. The copy of the application produced before this Court indicates that the

¶41

W.P.(C) No.5878 of 2017

¶42

-3-

¶43

original application has been received by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Railway), Kasargod. Ext.P4 is the reminder claimed to have been sent by the petitioner to Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is also seen acknowledged by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kasargod. The learned Special Government Pleader has no case that Exts.P3 and P4 are false documents. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the inability on the part of the respondents in tracing out the application preferred by the petitioner for reference cannot be a reason for declining the request made by the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act.

¶44

In the said view of the matter, the writ

¶45

petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to furnish a copy of Ext.P3 before the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kasargod, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If a copy of Ext.P3 is furnished by the petitioner before the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kasargod as directed above, it is directed

¶46

-4-

¶47

W.P.(C) No.5878 of 2017

¶48

that the same shall be treated as the original and shall be processed and made over to the reference court under Section 18 of the Act, within a month thereafter.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶51

bpr

Safiya v. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiya v. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

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

Chandran Vs Suma

A.L.Jacob Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Anju S Vs Federal Bank

Multi State New Generation Banking Workers Union Vs Security and Exchange Board of India

R. Valasala Menon Alias Valsala Amma Vs State of Kerala

N.L. George Vs the District Collector