Dismissed

Saidunisa v. Union of India

Kerala HC10 Dec 2018WP(C)/28271/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged land acquisition for National Highway expansion. Relying on a prior judgment from the same court, the court dismissed the petition, directing that the petitioner benefit from the 2013 Act compensation standards despite the National Highway Act, 1956 provisions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was finally dismissed, with the petitioner entitled to the compensation benefits of the 2013 Act as per the earlier judgment.

Saidunisa Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 28271 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SAIDUNISA, W/O ALI AKBAR,PUTHU VEETTIL HOUSE, MANATHALA,CHAVAKKADU,THRISSUR-680506

¶8

BY ADVOCATES M/S.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR, MATHEWS RAJU, BENNY ANTONY PAREL, MOHAMMED SALIH, PARVATHY VIJAYAN, SIBHA S., T.M.MUHAMMED HAFEES

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001

¶11

2 PROJECT DIRECTOR

¶12

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COCHIN NHAI, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU-682030.

¶13

3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH-17, (KUTTIPURAM-EDAPPALLY) KONDUNGALLUR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680666.

¶14

4 PROJECT ENGINEER, FEED BACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.14, LANGFORD GARDEN, 1ST FLOOR, LANGFORD AVENUE, LALBAGH ROAD, (NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE), BANGALORE-560025, INDIA.

¶15

5 MANATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH THIRUVATHRA PO, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-680516, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. SRI.HARIDAS.P.NAIR,CGC FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY, SC FOR NHAI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

W.P.(C)No.28271 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

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

¶22

" a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to acquire land on the eastern and western side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) equally, in the place where it passes through Manathala.

¶23

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to ignore the religious dimension of any structure situated on either side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) for the purpose of acquisition.

¶24

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take into consideration of the 4^th respondent to limit the National Highway to 30 meters in places where it passes through important commercial areas.

¶25

d) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Honourable Court. "

¶26

In the instant case, the impugned land acquisition is covered by the very same notification and pertaining to the very same village, as the one in WP(C).No.30400/2018, etc. The matter in the issue is covered against the petitioner as per the common

¶27

judgment dated 19.11.2018 rendered by this Court in WP(C).No.30400/2018 and connected matters. In

¶28

W.P.(C).No.28271/2018

¶29

the said judgment, it was also ordered that though the acquisition has been in terms of the National Highway Act, 1956, the petitioner is entitled to higher compensation benefits in terms of the 2013 Act, in view of the amendment thereto. The benefit of the said directions to the petitioner therein will also enure to the petitioner herein as well. Subject to these conditions, the above WP(C) will stand dismissed.

¶30

For the sake of clarity it is ordered that the Registry will place a copy of the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in WP(C).No.30400/2018 as an appendix to this judgment.

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

MMG

¶35

W.P.(C).No.28271/2018

¶36

..4..

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0220079 DATED 14.8.2018 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE WILBERSMITH ASSOCIATES, BANGALORE IN 2013. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEED BACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE IN 2018.

Saidunisa v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidunisa v. Union of India

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

National Abdulla Vs General Manager

Renjith.K.C Vs the District Collector

Nassar Vs the Union of India

Santha.M.L Vs Village Officer and Others

Jyothy P. Vs State of Kerala

K. Radha Vs Tahasildar (Lr)