Dismissed

Thomas Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018WP(C)/32767/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that steps for acquisition of the petitioner's property can be taken only after setting in motion proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was directed that acquisition steps could only be taken after initiating proceedings under Central Act 30 of 2013; no coercive action allowed until such steps are taken in accordance with l

Thomas Sebastian Vs 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

MONDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 32767 of 2018

PETITIONER:

THOMAS SEBASTIAN

AGED 75 YEARS

S/O SEBASTIAN, IRUMPANATH HOUSE, MEEMPARA, AIKKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SMT.LIZZ MARIYA ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,

¶14

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001

¶15

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (ROAD AND BRIDGES) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶16

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683101.

¶17

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(ROADS AND BRIDGES), MUVATTUPUZHA 686664

¶18

5 NIBU PETER, S/O O.P.PATHROSE, O.P.PATHROSE AND COMPANY, OMBALAYIL BUILDING, KOLENCHERY-682311, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4

¶21

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

¶22

W.P(C)No.32767 of 2018

¶23

¶24

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(C)No.32767 of 2018

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ

¶31

Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶32

i. To issue a Writ of mandamus, order or Direction to respondents not to encroach upon the property of the petitioner referred to in Exhibit P1 and not to demolish or alter the compound wall situated in the petitoner's property facing Anamunthy-Meempara road.

¶33

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the respondents to issue notice and to proceed under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in case the petitioner's property is required for the improvement of the road as per Exhibits P3 and P4.

¶34

iii. To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.

¶35

2. Heard Sri.George Sebastian, learned

¶36

counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶37

Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader

¶38

appearing for official respondents 1 to 4. In the

¶39

W.P(C)No.32767 of 2018

¶40

¶41

nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to contesting respondent No.3 will stand dispensed with.

¶42

3. According to the petitioner, no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner’s property of 53 Ares comprised in Survey No.268/1 and an extent of 27.20 Ares in Survey No.268/4 and an extent of 2.50 Ares in Survey No.198/2 of Aikkaranad South

¶43

Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue District and that a compound wall has been in existence of the petitioner’s property for the last more than 28 years, which clearly separates the petitioner’s property from a road which is situated on the western side of the petitioner’s property. On 05.10.2018, the officials of the

¶44

respondent-Public Words Department and workers under the 5^th respondent-Contractor deputed by the Public Works Department had come to the petitioner’s property and started measurements and inspections and the petitioner’s enquiries reveal

¶45

¶46

¶47

that improvement and development of the aforementioned road (viz., Anamunthy – Meempara Road), is going to take place in terms of Ext.P-3 G.O(Rt.)No.1386/2017/PWD dated 15.09.2017, granted only administrative sanction for the proposed widening and improvement of the road. That the petitioner was also told that a portion of his property will be acquired and that the compound wall of the petitioner’s property will have to be demolished for the purpose of the improvement of the road in question. That no notice has been issued to the petitioner so far and that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, no proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act.30 of 2013) or any such enactment relating to acquisition has been initiated in respect of the petitioner’s property so far and that the action of the respondents is illegal etc. Further, the petitioner would also contend that the road in

¶48

¶49

¶50

question can be widened without affecting the petitioner’s property, etc. and that the petitioner has been told that the work would commence by 08.10.2018 etc. It is in light of these factual averments, the petitioner has filed

¶51

the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers. While admitting this case on 08.10.2018, this Court had directed that there shall be an interim stay of demolishing of any

¶52

structure or any encroachments into any property of the petitioner without recourse to the proceedings for acquisition, in accordance with law.

¶53

4. In the light of these aspects it is ordered that the steps for acquisition of the petitioner’s property could be taken by the

¶54

respondents only after setting in motion proceedings under the abovesaid Central

¶55

Act.30/2013 or in accordance with any other competent law governing the subject. Until such steps are taken strictly in accordance with the

¶56

¶57

¶58

provisions contained in such enactments, no coercive action for acquisition of land shall be taken against the petitioner’s property. In case, any such notification under the abovesaid Act has already been issued or is contemplated to be issued, then the competent authority among respondents 2 to 4 should serve a copy of such notification to the petitioner.

¶59

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

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/07.11.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY	OF	THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
	DATED 6.8. AIKKARANAD S	2018 OUTH	ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY AND	SHO THE	WING THE PETITIONER'S ROAD.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY THE GOVERNME ISSUED BY TH	OF T NT E 1S	HE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ORDER DATED 15.9.2017 T RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COP PUBLISHED ON	Y O 23.	F THE TENDER DETAILS 12.2017

Thomas Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Sebastian v. State of Kerala

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

C.R. Sudhakaran Vs Union of India

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty Vs the Village Officer

K.N. Chandran, Vs Land Revenue Commissioner