Allowed

K.M.Chandrasekharan v. the District Collector, Kannur

Kerala HC12 Jun 2018WP(C)/11465/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which rejected reliance on a Lok Adalath settlement. Court quashed the lower order and directed reconsideration based on its judgment in Thankamma Mathew.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order quashed; petitioner directed to produce judgment; third respondent directed to reconsider matter within two months.

K.M.Chandrasekharan Vs the District Collector, Kannur — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 11465 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.M.CHANDRASEKHARAN AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.AMMALU AMMA, "KRISHNA", PAVAMKULANGARA VALIYATHARA TEMPLE ROAD, P.O.TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 301.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶11

KANNUR - 670 701.

¶12

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶13

KINFRA, VELLAYAMBALAM,

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) AIRPORT NO.1, MATTANNUR,

¶16

KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 701.

¶17

R1 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ

¶18

R4 BY SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 11465 of 2018 (G)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 04.01.2016 IN LAR NO.368/2013 OF SUB COURT, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 04.01.2016 IN LAR NO.369/2013 OF SUB COURT, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.03.2016 REGISTERED ON 03.03.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONGWITH POSTAL RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2017 IN WP(C) NO.38951/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2018 IN CON. CASE (C) NO.12/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk/12/6/18

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

W.P.(C)No. 11465 of 2018

¶30

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2018

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition

¶33

is that, Ext.P6 order is passed by the third respondent under Section

¶34

28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 holding that, the judgments

¶35

relied upon by the petitioner are based on the settlement arrived at in

¶36

the Lok Adalath created for settling the disputes by and between the

¶37

parties. According to the petitioner, the said stand adopted by the

¶38

third respondent cannot be sustained for various reasons including

¶39

for the reason that, the issue is covered by a judgment rendered of

¶40

this Court in Thankamma Mathew v. State of Kerala [2017(2) KLT 1023.]

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶42

standing counsel and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶43

W.P.(C)No. 11465 of 2018

¶44

¶45

On going through the judgment in Thankamma Mathew

¶46

(supra) it is clearly evident that, the very same issue by which the relief

¶47

sought for by the petitioner was declined by the third respondent is considered by this Court and held that, an application under Section 29A of Act, 1894 can be considered taking into account the orders passed in adalath. I am in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforequoted judgment.

¶48

Therefore, writ petition will stand allowed, Ext.P6 will stand

¶49

quashed and there will be a direction to the third respondent to reconsider the matter, taking into account the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforequoted judgment. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with appended document and a certified copy of the judgment (supra). A decision shall be taken within

¶50

two month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

dlk/12/6/18

K.M.Chandrasekharan v. the District Collector, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Chandrasekharan v. the District Collector, Kannur

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

The Manager High School Thiruvalayannar Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Syamala Vs the State of Kerala

P. Mohan Kumar Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Suresh Babu Vs the Tahsildar, Mananthavady

Savija Vs the District Collector

K. Moideenkutty Haji Vs State of Kerala