Dismissed

Baby Sarojam v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2018WP(C)/32550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging a land acquisition award and communication regarding compensation. The petitioner sought leave to approach the civil court to adjudicate disputed facts, as such matters were not suitable for writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the petitioner to move the civil court; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach civil court.

Baby Sarojam Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 32550 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 BABY SAROJAM, AGED 62 YEARS W/O LATE KUMARASWAMI NADAAR, ALINKAMANNATI VEETIL, MACHIUODU DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK 695121

¶8

2 LINY, D/O LATE KUMARASWAMI NADAAR,ALINKAMANNATI VEETIL,MACHIYODU DESOM,CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695121.

¶9

3 SONY,S/O LATE KUMARASWAMI NADAAR,ALINKAMANNATI VEETIL,MACHIYODU DESOM,CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695121.

¶10

4 PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.LATE KUMARASWAMI NADAAR, ALINKAMANNATI VEETIL, MACHIYODU DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK - 695 121

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695001

¶15

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPENTENT AUTHORITY, L.A.(N.H.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶17

4 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

WP(C).No. 32550 of 2018

¶19

-2-

¶20

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, MARYAPURAM.P.O-695122.

¶21

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4, SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R5

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶26

W.P.(C).No.32550 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2018.

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are

¶30

as follows:

¶31

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P6 communication issued by the 3^rd respondent and call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P6.

¶32

ii. Declare that Ext.P4 award is illegal to the extent that they fail to cover the entire acquired property from the petitioners.

¶33

iii. issue a writ of mandamus to the 3^rd respondent to pass award with respect to 3.95 ares of property in re-survey No.402/18 of Block No.43 of Chenkal Village.

¶34

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus to respondents No.3 to re-consider Ext.P5 representation and pass orders within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶35

WP(C).No. 32550 of 2018

¶36

-3-

¶37

2. Heard Sri.Neeraj Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri.Thomas Antony, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, appearing for R-4.

¶38

3. The 3^rd respondent has filed a statement

¶39

dated 15.11.2018 wherein it has been stated in

¶40

para 4 thereof as follows:

¶41

“4. It is submitted that on verification of the records it is revealed that petitioners are the legal heirs of late Kumara Swami Nadar. Even though the documents of the petitioner show an extent of 9.20 ares of land in Sy No.402/18, out of 9.25 ares Late Kumara Swami Nadar surrendered 3.95 ares of land for the construction of road in 1992. The said road has 5 Km length and tarred one. The said road is passing through the plaintiffs property. So the claim of the petitioners to get the compensation for an area of 3.95 ares which is not in their possession and the claim of compensation for the puramboke land has been rejected. Hence the claim of petitioners to get compensation for 3.95 ares of puramboke land is baseless, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed with costs.”

¶42

The 1^st petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in the matter giving her version in the matter. Now it is submitted by Sri.Neeraj Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of instructions of his party that as the matter requires resolution of disputed facts which may

¶43

WP(C).No. 32550 of 2018

¶44

-4-

¶45

not be ordinarily amenable in writ proceedings, the petitioner seeks leave of this Court in order to move the civil court, after arraying the State authorities concerned in order to have adjudication of such disputed factual issues.

¶46

In the light of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

¶49

JUDGE.

¶50

Bkn/-

¶51

WP(C).No. 32550 of 2018

¶52

-5-

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTITION DEED 695/1991 DATED 28.11.1973 OF AMARAVILA SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE.

¶56

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.07.2012 WITH RESPECT TO 09.20 ARES OF PROPERTY IN RE-SURVEY NO.402/18 OF CHANKAL VILLAGE, EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE 17.02.2012 OF LATE KIUMARASWAMI

¶57

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD BY NO.L.A.C.NOI.820/13 DATED 10.03.2015

¶58

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.05.2017 BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶59

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY NO.B1/198/17 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.05.2017.

¶60

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 15.02.2018

¶61

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO EXT.P7 RTI APPLICATION DATED 22.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Baby Sarojam v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Sarojam v. the State of Kerala

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

Pauly George Vs the Tahasildar, Aluva Taluk

Sahadevan.K.K Vs the District Registrar (General)

Ambalath Veettil Chinganath Hamsa Vs Union of India

K.P. Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Nandanan Vs State of Kerala

Vasudevan Seetharaman, Vs the National Highways Authority of India