Dismissed

Nalakathu Paduvingal Muhammed, v. Union of India

Kerala HC11 Dec 2018WP(C)/30888/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a prior judgment in connected cases regarding the same notification regulates this petition, entitling petitioners to compensatory benefits under the 2013 Act. The writ petition asking for mandamus directions to the National Highway Authority is dismissed based on this precedent.

What did the court decide?

Relief of acquiring land, ignoring religious dimension of structures, and limiting highway width was denied; petition dismissed.

Nalakathu Paduvingal Muhammed, 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

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 30888 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 NALAKATHU PADUVINGAL MUHAMMED, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED UNNI R.K., 12/21, NALAKATHU PADUVINGAL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYUR, CHAVAKKAD-680 515.

¶8

2 ACHUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS W/O MUHAMMED UNNI,KAZRIYADATH HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYUR POST, EDAKKAZHIYUR, CHAVAKAKD-680515.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶13

2 PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COCHIN, NHAI, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU-682030.

¶14

3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH-17, (KUTTIPURAM-EDAPALLY), KONDUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(C)No.30888/2018

¶17

¶18

5 PUNNAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680518, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI.K.A.BALAN,CGC FOR R1, SRI.THOMAS ANTONY,SC FOR R2, SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER FOR R3

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C)No.30888/2018

¶23

¶24

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C)No.30888 OF 2018

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

“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 Edakkazhiyur.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

d) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Honourable court.”

¶35

W.P.(C)No.30888/2018

¶36

¶37

Heard Sri.Joswin Thambi Kunnath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Thomas Antony, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, Smt.A.C.Vidhya, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent and Sri.K.A.Balan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶38

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in a similar case involving the very same notification in question in respect of the very same village, this court has already rendered judgment dated 19.11.2018 in W.P. (C)No.30198/2018 and connected cases and the said writ petition has been dismissed as per the said judgment. However, this court has held that in view of the amendment made to the new 2013 Act, the land owners concerned who are subjected to acquisition proceedings under the National Highway Act, 1956 will have the right to claim compensatory benefits in terms of the provisions contained in Schedule 1, 2 and 3 of the new 2013 Act as amended.

¶39

Accordingly, it is ordered that the findings and directions already made by this court in the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in W.P.(C)No.30198/2018 and connected cases will regulate this case as well. It is made clear that the petitioners herein will also be entitled for the compensatory benefits in terms of the provisions contained in schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the new 2013 Act. For the sake of clarity, it is ordered that the Registry will place a copy of the judgment

¶40

W.P.(C)No.30888/2018

¶41

¶42

in W.P.(C)No.30198/2018 as appendix to this case.

¶43

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil)

¶44

will stand dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

sv.

W.P.(C)No.30888/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7.9.2018 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0259250 DATED 4.9.2018 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 26.6.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE WILBERSMITH ASSOCIATES, BANGALORE IN 2013 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEEDBACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE IN 2018

¶53

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶54

ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND ACQUISITION PLAN

Nalakathu Paduvingal Muhammed, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalakathu Paduvingal Muhammed, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santha.M.L Vs Village Officer and Others

Saidunisa Vs Union of India

Jyothy P. Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa Vs the Tahsildar

Emmanuel Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Deepak M.R. Vs Tahsildar