Disposed

Laly Roy v. the Greater Cochin Development Authority

Kerala HC9 Mar 2018WA/2482/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the competent authority's in-principle decision favoring the appellant entitles her claim to first consideration. Ordered the authority to decide the appellant's claim expeditiously within two months, noting no impediment if the third respondent's claim can also be accommodated.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals dismissed; respondent authority directed to consider appellant's claim within two months before addressing the third respondent's claim.

Laly Roy Vs the Greater Cochin Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶7

WA.No. 2482 of 2017 IN WPC. 25249/2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25249/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER

¶9

LALY ROY

¶10

W/O. ROY @ JOB M.D., RESIDING AT MUZHANGATHARA HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI - 36.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

¶12

SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GCDA, KOCHI - 682 020.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, GCDA, KOCHI - 682 020.

¶16

M.R. JACOB, MUNNUKOOTTUMGAL HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036.

¶17

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.MATHEW (SR.) R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE, SC, GCDA BY SRI.ARUN VALENCHERY

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2018, A/W WA NO.2533/17, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶20

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶21

W. A. Nos.2482 & 2533 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of March 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶25

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25249 of 2015. The third respondent is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10240 of 2015.

¶26

The appellant's husband, a landless poor person, initially applied to GCDA to have 1.5 cents of land allotted to him, under the Government policy endorsed by the Chief Minister in Janasamparka Programme. Based on the steps taken by the Revenue authorities, the appellant's husband remitted Rs.10,000/- on 08.11.2012 as advance and corresponded with the authorities.

¶27

On the other hand, the third respondent also pressed his claim for allotment of land said to be near to his existing plot of land. This has led to some disputes. Eventually, the appellant, who claims on her husband’s behalf, and the third respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25249 and W.P. (C) No.10240 of 2015, respectively.

¶28

-2-

¶29

W. A. Nos.2482 & 2533 of 2017

¶30

The learned single Judge disposed of both the writ petitions through a common judgment on 09.11.2017. The judgment contains a direction that reads as follows:

¶31

“In the result, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the claim raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25249 of 2015 on the strength of Exhibits P2 and P3 as also the claim raised in W.P.(C) No.10240 of 2015. The GCDA shall take a decision in the matter after hearing the parties and pass a final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶32

Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the authorities have emphatically observed that the appellant’s husband is landless and that his application had already been acted upon. In response to the authorities’ in principle decision, the appellant's husband even deposited Rs.10,000/-.

¶34

To support his contentions, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to Exts.P3 and P4 communications the revenue officials addressed to the appellant. He has also submitted that another applicant who approached along with the appellant's husband was allotted the land in 2015 itself. Only the appellant’s husband was denied.

¶35

In the alternative, learned counsel has also contended that the

¶36

-3-

¶37

W. A. Nos.2482 & 2533 of 2017

¶38

third respondent’s father was first allotted three cents of land. After the allottee’s death, the third respondent, his son, succeeded along with his another. So it cannot be said that the third respondent is a landless poor person to be preferred at the expense of the appellant. Therefore, he urges us to set aside the impugned judgment, which in fact allowed the GCDA to consider the issue anew and take a decision afresh.

¶39

Heard Sri.K.Narayanan, learned Standing Counsel for the GCDA.

¶40

Indeed, Exts.P3 and P4 do indicate that the respondent authorities took a decision in principle that the appellant’s husband is entitled to be allotted 1.5 cents of land, at Rs.2 lakhs per cent. It also appears that the appellant’s husband has complied with whatever procedural requirements indicated by the respondent officials.

¶41

If at all GCDA could accommodate the claim of both, the appellant and the third respondent, provided their claims are legitimate, the Court sees no impediment for that.

¶42

At any rate, given the decision-in-principle taken by the authorities, the appellant's claim has to be considered first, without reference to the claim raised by the third respondent, who admittedly

¶43

-4-

¶44

W. A. Nos.2482 & 2533 of 2017

¶45

wanted to have the property near to his existing plot of land. Once the authorities consider the appellant's claim in accordance with law, then it would be open for them to consider the third respondent's claim, too.

¶46

With these observations, we dispose of the writ appeals. Needless to observe that the authorities will consider the appellant's claim expeditiously, in two months' time.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ANTONY DOMINIC CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶51

kns/-

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

P. S. TO JUDGE

Laly Roy v. the Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laly Roy v. the Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anas Vs Shri Virendra Kumar

Abdul Bari Vs Syndicate Bank

Hassankutty Vs the District Collector Idukki

Mariyapuram Poura Samithy Vs Leo V.J

S.Sanal Kumar Vs the Divisional Officer, United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Adv.T.M.Sudheer Vs Home Secretary Union of India