Disposed

Sri.Antony Thoma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2018WP(C)/1912/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This warrants the return of acquired land was petitioned. The court directed the first respondent to consider the pending representation within three months, taking into account prior observations by the Ombudsman and forwarded records, after providing the petitioner participation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within three months from receipt of the judgment copy.

Sri.Antony Thoma Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1912 of 2018

¶6

----------------------

¶7

PETITIONERS :

¶8

SRI.ANTONY THOMA S/O. THOMA (LATE) ARAMBOOKARAN HOUSE, MANKAVU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.ROY JOSEPH SMT.ANIES MATHEW SRI.E.HARIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001

¶13

3. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 678 001

¶14

4. CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD - 678 001

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA B. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶16

SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 1912 of 2018 (L)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE	INFORMATION DATED 1-6-2007
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE	DECISION NO. 58 DATED 20-04-1983
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 22-4-1983
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SRI.K.K DIVAKARAN ASSEMBLY	LETTER DATED 13-3-2008 ISSUED BY MEMBER, KERALA LEGISLATIVE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM	LETTER DATED 8-4-2008 SUBMITTED MUNICIPAL DIRECTORATE,
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT NO. 9 OMBUDSMAN, LSGI	ORDER DATED 16-12-2015 IN 19/2010 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT	REPRESENTATION DATED 7-4-2017 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P7(A)	COPY OF THE POSTA	L RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE	GO(K) NO. 78/2014 DATED 30-01-2014

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 1912 OF 2018

¶29

Dated this the 08^th day of February, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner was the owner in possession of 0.0065 ares of property in Survey No. 3609 of Palakkad Village III, which was acquired for the construction of a road for the proposed stadium in the year 1981, as per the requisition made by the Palakkad Municipality. Since entire land was not necessary Ext.P2 decision was taken by the fourth respondent to return the land and thereupon, petitioner did not collect the amount awarded in the Land Acquisition proceedings. However, petitioners land was not returned and inspite of the direction issued by the Office of the Chief Minister, the request was declined. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions by

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 1912 OF 2018 2

¶33

the Chief Minister's Office, which considered and passed Ext.P6 order leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to consider the request made by the petitioner and assign the land, if the Government wishes. According to the petitioner, the entire documents forwarded from the Office of the Chief Minister were returned by the Ombudsman, which is also evident from the recitals contained in Ext.P6. Anyhow, petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 before the first respondent, which is pending consideration. I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with suitable directions.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for the third and fourth respondents, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 taking into account the observations made in Ext.P6 and the records forwarded by the Ombudsman, after providing participation of the petitioner and attain finality, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 1912 OF 2018

¶36

¶37

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶39

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶40

/True copy/

¶41

P.A. to Judge

¶42

DCS

Sri.Antony Thoma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Antony Thoma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekha Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Kalasakarathi Devaki Vs the Special Tahsildar

E.v.Raju Vs Kerala Water Authority

Kanaran K Vs Sri.Suresh

K.P. Moidu Haji Vs the Additional Magistrate, Malappuram

Charles Mathew Vs State of Kerala