Allowed

Kunhimuhammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2017WP(C)/8911/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for redetermination of compensation due to late production of a certified copy of the award. The Court held that the delay was not material given the subsequent production of the certified copy and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order was quashed; and the competent authority was directed to reconsider the application on merits within two months.

Kunhimuhammed Vs State of Kerala — 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 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/29TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 8911 of 2017 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUNHIMUHAMMED S/O.MUHAMMAD, AGED 54 YEARS, EDAKADAMPAN HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI, VALLIKKAPATTA, KANHAMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶11

2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 8911 of 2017 (L)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER EXHIBITS: NIL

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 30-8-2013 IN L.A.R. NO.44/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE FILE NO.D 16595/13 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-8-2016.

¶19

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

bng

PA TO JUDGE

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2017

¶25

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2017

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner has preferred an application for redetermination of compensation granted to a property acquired for a public purpose invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act'). The application has been preferred by the petitioner within the time stipulated under Section 28A of the Act along with a photocopy of the award of the reference court on the basis of which he sought redetermination. Ext.P3 is the order passed on the application. As per Ext.P3, the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2017

¶29

-2-

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶32

Ext.P3 indicates that the application preferred

¶33

by the petitioner for redetermination of compensation has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not produced a certified copy of the award, on the basis of which redetermination is sought, within the time stipulated in the provision. From Ext.P3, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the award of the reference court after the period prescribed for filing application under Section 28A of the Act. Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the competent authority on the application preferred by the petitioner for redetermination, obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P2 indicates that though the petitioner had initially not produced the certified copy, he had later produced a certified copy of the award of the reference court.

¶34

In so far as the petitioner has submitted the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2017

¶36

-3-

¶37

application on time, according to me, the inability on the part of the petitioner in producing the certified copy of the award of the reference court on time, is not material. Now, it is evident that the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the award of the reference court also. In the circumstances, having regard to the object of Section 28A of the Act, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition.

¶38

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P3 order is quashed and the competent authority under the Act is directed to reconsider the application and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶40

bpr

Kunhimuhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhimuhammed 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

Sajeev Mathew Vs Super Intending Engineer

N.Ramakrishna Das Vs State of Kerala

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Collector, Palakkad

Basheer E Vs the Land Tribunal

Prakashan P.K. Vs Child Welfare Committee (Cwc)

M. Abdul Jabbar Vs Deputy Tahasildhar