Disposed

C.R. Sudhakaran v. Union of India

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018WP(C)/31951/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land acquisition steps without prior notification under the National Highway Act. The Court held that no further action could be taken absent a valid Section 3A notification, disposing the petition with contentions left open for future proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' properties shall not be proceeded for acquisition in the absence of any valid notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highway Act.

C.R. Sudhakaran 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 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 31951 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SRI.C.R.SUDHAKARAN AGED 61 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN, THUSHARA, NJAKKANI.P.O., OCHIRA, KOLLAM DIST - 690 526.

¶8

2 SMT.PREMALATHA SUDHAKARAN, W/O.SUDHAKARAN THUSHARA, NJAKKANI.P.O., OCHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT -690526.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SMT.V.A.HARITHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

3 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-586, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110075, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

4 PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TC-29/1539/1, RAJASREE KAIRALI, PERUMTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.

¶15

W.P(C)No.31951 of 2018

¶16

¶17

5 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM - 691013.

¶18

SRI.H.KIRAN,CGC FOR R1, SRI.JESTIN MATHEW,GOVT.PLEADER FOR R2 AND R5, SRI.THOMAS ANTONY, SC FOR R3 AND R4

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C)No.31951 of 2018

¶21

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

=============================

¶24

W.P(C)No.31951 of 2018

¶25

=============================

¶26

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition

¶29

(Civil) are as follows:

¶30

(i) To declare that the respondents are not having authority to initiate any action against the 7.31 Ares of property owned by the 1^st petitioner in Survey No.1/16-3,1/16,1/19,1/18-1 and 1/18-2 and 1.62 Ares of property owned by the 2^nd petitoner in Survey No.1/18/2-1 in Block No.4 of Ochira Village, Karunagapally Taluk, Kollam District under Section 3B to 3G of the National Highway Act in the absence of Exhibit 3A notification.

¶31

(ii) To declare that the acquisition steps shall be initiated in consonance with Table 8.4 shown in the report submitted by the consultant named SMEC as per letter No.NHAI/HQ/Kerala/NH17&47/2015-16/42 dated 27.06.2016.

¶32

(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 3 to 5 not to issue notification under Section 3D of the National Highway Act 1956 with respect to the property owned by the petitioners situated in Survey No.1/163,1/16,1/19,1/18-1 and 1/18-2 and in Survey No.1/18/2-1 in Block No.4 of Ochira Village, Karunagapally Taluk, Kollam District.

¶33

W.P(C)No.31951 of 2018

¶34

¶35

(iv) To issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents 3 to 5 not to take possession over the property owned by the petitoners situated in Survey No.1/16-3,1/16,1/19,1/18-1 and 1/18-2 and in Survey No.1/18/2-1 in Block No.4 of Ochira Village, Karunagapally Taluk, Kollam District.

¶36

(v) Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

¶37

2. Heard Sri.P.A.Mohammed Shah, learned

¶38

counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Thomas Antony, learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) appearing for respondents 3 & 4, Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 & 5 and Sri.H.Kiran, learned Central Government Counsel

¶39

(CGC) appearing for R1-Union of India.

¶40

3. The complaint of the petitioners is that though his property has not been included in Ext.P-6 notification dated 09.03.2018 issued under the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956, in the matter of acquisition of properties, the respondents concerned, more particularly

¶41

respondents 3 to 5 are taking steps for acquiring

¶42

¶43

¶44

the properties of the petitioners covered in Exts.P-1 to P-3 basic land tax receipts comprised in survey Nos.1/16-3, 1/16, 1/19, 1/18-1, 1/18-2 in Block No.4 & 1/18/2-1 in Block No.4 of Oachira Village, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam Revenue District etc. While admitting this case, this Court had issued an interim order dated 01.10.2018 directing that the absence of inclusion of the petitioners' property in any valid notification issued for acquisition, no further steps shall be taken in the matter etc. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.Thomas Antony,

¶45

learned Standing Counsel, NHAI appearing for official respondents 3 & 4 would submit on the basis of instructions that it appears that the petitioners' abovesaid properties have not been included in Ext.P-6 notification issued under Sec.3A of the National Highway Act, 1956 and that the respondents 3 & 4 would proceed as against the

¶46

petitioners' properties, only after issuing fresh notification under Sec.3A of the abovesaid Act, if

¶47

¶48

¶49

it is found so required. The abovesaid submission made on behalf of respondents 3 & 4 are recorded. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners' property shall not be proceeded for acquisition under the abovesaid Act, in the absence of any valid notification issued under Sec.3A of the

¶50

abovesaid Act. All contentions of either side shall left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings, if the occasion thereof actually arises for consideration.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/08.11.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR 3.51 ARES OF PROPERTY OWNED BY 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27.10.2017. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR 3.80 ARES OF PROPERTY OWNED BY 1ST PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2017. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR 1.62 ARES OF PROPERTY OWNED BY 2ND PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2017. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DATED 11.9.2018. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER FOR THE HYPER MARKET DATED 8.5.2017 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 9.3.2018. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING. EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SURVEY STONES IN THE BUILDING. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 16.7.2018. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NUMBERED AS S.O.2559(E) DATED 22.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

C.R. Sudhakaran v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R. Sudhakaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayee Bhava Properties Ltd. Vs M/S.Vaokundam Rubbers Company

Sujatha Purushan Vs the District Collector

M/S. Fibre Glass Techniques Company Vs District Collector

Thomas Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty Vs the Village Officer

K.N. Chandran, Vs Land Revenue Commissioner