Dismissed

Anitha Govindan v. Special Tahsildar (L.a)

Kerala HC16 Nov 2018WP(C)/28088/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought payment of land compensation allotted for an electric tower. Court dismissed petition as reliefs were already granted, with remaining claims to be adjudicated under pending district court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition as amounts were disbursed; directed District Court to adjudicate remaining claims in Original Petition.

Anitha Govindan Vs Special Tahsildar (L.a) — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/25TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.28088 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANITHA GOVINDAN, D/O.LATE HARIHARAN NAIR, W/O.GOVINDAN, 45 YEARS, CHAMAMALAYIL, KINGINIMATOM, KOLENCHERY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVOCATES SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) & SRI.JOHNSON THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030.

¶11

2 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, B-9 QUTAB INDUSTRIAL AREA, KATWARIASARAI, NEW DELHI-110016.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶13

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R3, SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

W.P.(C)No.28088 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2018

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows.

¶21

“

¶22

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding respondents to disburse the amount now allotted to the petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Hariharan Nair, towards value of the Land used for erecting the Electric Tower, forthwith.

¶23

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other Writ or order directing the Respondents to disburse the amount now allotted to the petitioners towards value of the Land used for erecting the Electric Tower, irrespective of the pendency of the O.P.(Ele) No.146/2014 before the VI th Additional District Court, Ernakulam. And

¶24

iii. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts of the case.”

¶25

Heard Sri.John Joseph (Roy), learned counsel

¶26

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.C.Vidhya, learned Govenrment Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 3, and Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned Standing Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., appearing for R2.

¶27

This Court has already passed an order dated

¶28

30.8.2017 in this WP(C), which reads as follows.

¶29

W.P.(C).No.28088/2017

¶30

..3..

¶31

“ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

¶32

2. The specific case of the petitioner is that enhancement has been granted in terms of G.O.(MS)No.29/2015 dated 30.7.2015 only as regards the land acquired from them for erecting tower and that Ext.P2 original petition involves various other claims also.

¶33

In the circumstances, there will be an interim order directing the respondents to refrain from compelling the petitioner and others to withdraw Ext.P2 proceedings for effecting payment of the amounts payable to the predecessor of the petitioner late Hariharan Nair in terms of G.O.(MS)No.29/2015 dated 30.7.2015. ”

¶34

4. Now submitted by Sri.John Joseph (Roy), learned

¶35

counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions that the amounts in question has already been disbursed to the petitioner and that the petitioner has received the said amount in respect of the land acquired for the tower foot area for erecting the towers. Accordingly it is ordered that the District Court concerned,will therefore adjudicate the remaining claims of the petitioner in Ext.P-2 Original Petition (Ele) No.146 of 2014 without any further delay and in that regard it is made clear that no adjudication is required in respect of the claim of the petitioner for the land area

¶36

W.P.(C).No.28088/2017

¶37

..4..

¶38

required for the erection of the tower and adjudication may be confined only to the other remaining claims of the petitioner in that O.P. A reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent may be granted by the District Court concerned and after completing necessary procedures and formalities and within a reasonable time limit etc.

¶39

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

MMG

¶43

W.P.(C).No.28088/2017

¶44

..5..

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.12.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION (ELE) NO.146 OF 2014 NOW PENDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DECEASED FATHER OF THE PETITIONER.

Anitha Govindan v. Special Tahsildar (L.a)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Govindan v. Special Tahsildar (L.a)

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

Thressia Paul Vs the District Collector

Jacob Japasingh Vs State of Kerala

Joju John Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Joby Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Thomas T. Lukose Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Karim .M Vs State of Kerala