Disposed

Azhar Kuriyathoda v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Kerala HC15 Jan 2018WP(C)/28440/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order notes that the respondent submitted a fresh award was passed under the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 after cancelling the impugned award. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as the sought reliefs became inconsequential and redundant.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as sought reliefs became inconsequential and redundant due to the passage of a fresh award under the RTFAR Act, 2013.

Azhar Kuriyathoda Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep — 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

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 25TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 28440 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1	AZHAR KURIYATHODA AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SYEDBUHARI, KALKULAM, KILTAN ISLAND.
2	KURIYATHODA ATTABI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SYED BUHARI, KALKULAM, KILTAN ISLAND.
3	KURIYATHODA IQBAL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SYED BUHARI, KALKULAM, KILTAN ISLAND.
4	CHOOLATHIYODA RAHMATHBI, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.SYED BUHARI, KALKULAM, KILTAN ISLAND.
5	CHOOLATHIYODA MUHAMMED, S/O.SYED BUHARI, KALKULAM, KILTAN ISLAND.
6	KASMIKOYA PATHIMAPURA, AGED 65 YEARS, MUHAMMED KALKULAM,
	KILTAN ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP.
	PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KASMIKOYA PATHIMAPURA, 6TH PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶9

SRI.K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.

¶12

2. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.

¶13

R1-2 BY SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 28440 of 2017 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT D PETITION NO.18238/2016.	ATED 1.6.2016 IN WRIT
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION 30.1.2017 IN I.A.20100/2016	PETITION DATED IN W.P.9C) NO.18238/2016.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S CASE ON 3.2.20	AWARD PASSED IN THE 17.
RESPONDE --------	NTS EX ------	HIBITS: NIL -------
			//TRUE COPY//
dlk			P.A. TO JUDGE

¶19

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.28440 of 2017

¶21

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

¶24

“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate

¶25

writ order or direction quashing Ext.P3 award in respect of the acquired property of the petitioners.

¶26

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the the 2^nd respondent to pass an award pertaining to the acquired property of the petitioners as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”

¶27

Apparently from the pleadings made by the petitioner

¶28

it is evident that the grievance highlighted is in respect of

¶29

passage of Ext.P3 award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

¶30

after coming into force of Right to Fair Compensation and

¶31

W.P.(C) No.28440 of 2017

¶32

¶33

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

¶34

Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶35

Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, Ext.P3 award passed by the statutory authority is already canecelled and a fresh award is passed on 10.11.2017, taking into account the provisions of Act, 2013. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition have become inconsequential and redundant, consequent to the passage of the award under Act, 2013.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to hand over a copy of the fresh award to learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶40

dlk/15/1/

Azhar Kuriyathoda v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azhar Kuriyathoda v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

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

M/S. Paulose George Construction Co.(P)Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Jayan. N Vs Stte of Kerala

The Regional Fruits and Vegetable Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd. NO.C-816 Vs the Tahsildar

Sajeev Kumar M.R Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Limited Vs the Special Tahsildar

Sadanandan T.K. Vs State of Kerala