Allowed

Lakshmanan.C v. the District Collector

Kerala HC21 Dec 2018WP(C)/42252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order rejecting a Section 28A application under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court restored the original application for fresh adjudication by the Land Acquisition Officer, requiring a hearing within three months, citing precedents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Section 28A(1) application restored; Land Acquisition Officer to decide on merits within 3 months.

Lakshmanan.C Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 42252 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 LAKSHMANAN.C S/O. MUTTIL CHERIYA AMBU, NEAR MUKUNDA HOSPITAL, PAYYANNUR, P.O.PAYYANNUR.

¶8

2 P.V.BHAVANI, W/O.LATE CHUNNAMBI KUNHIKANNAN.

¶9

3 SHYNA P.V, D/O.LATE CHUNNAMBI KUNHIKANNAN.

¶10

4 RAJESH P.V, S/O.LATE CHUNNAMBI KUNHIKANNAN.

¶11

5 SANTHOSH P.V, S/O.LATE CHUNNAMBI KUNHIKANNAN(PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE CHUNNAMBI KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT PAYYANVALAPPIL HOUSE, NEAR KUNNARU CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.O. PALACODE VIA VENGARA, KANNUR670305)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR-673001

¶15

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA)

¶16

EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, NOW AT THALASSERY-670104.

¶17

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVT.PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C)No.42252 of 2018

¶20

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(C)No.42252 of 2018

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

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

¶28

follows:

¶29

“(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction and to set aside Exhibit P2 order of the 2^nd respondent as the same is totally against the provisions of law land settled judicial law on the point;

¶30

(ii) to declare that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in (1) 2004 (2) KLT 1029, (2) 2012 (4) KLT 360 and (3) 2015 (1) KLT 157 the Exhibit P2 order of the 2^nd respondent is not good in law, liable to be set aside, accordingly to restore Exhibit P1 application on file and adjudicate afresh on merit;

¶31

(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 pending application;

¶32

and

¶33

(iii) to grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶34

2. Heard Sri.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel

¶35

appearing for the petitioners and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned

¶36

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶37

¶38

¶39

The petitioners’ Ext.P-1 application filed under Sec.28A under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected by the 2^nd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer as per the impugned Ext.P-2 order, claiming that the compensation awarded to him in the land acquisition proceedings was quite meagre, the petitioners had preferred Sec.28A applications under the Land Acquisition Act, which was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, as per the impugned Ext.P-2 order stating that the judgment relied on the said Sec.28A application was rendered under Sec.28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, etc. Aggrieved by Ext.P-2, the 1^st petitioner and the father of the petitioners 3 to 5 have preferred Ext.P-3 application under Sec.28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners would contend that Ext.P-2 order is illegal and ultra vires and would pray to set aside Ext.P-2 order and to restore Ext.P-1 application under Sec.28A on file and in order to enable the 2^nd respondent to decide on the said application.

¶40

The matter in issue is covered in favour of the petitioner as per the dictum laid down by the Division Bench in the case District Collector v. Muhammed Kunhi

¶41

¶42

¶43

[2012 (4) KLT 360] & Palakkel Chirukandan v. Special Tahsildar (L.A) [2015 (1) KLT 157]. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-2 order will stand set aside and Ext.P-1 application filed under Sec.28A(1) will stand restored to file and the 2^nd respondent will grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and will take decision on Ext.P-1 application, in accordance with law, within 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/27.12.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.4.2009 PREFERRED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 LATE CHUNNAMBI KUNHIKANNAN AND THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶53

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO D.DIS 953/09/C DATED 23.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 28A(3) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

Lakshmanan.C v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanan.C v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Babu Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Sajil T.M., Vs State Ofkerala

Shobha R Vs the Tahsildar

Rajesh Vs the District Collector

Bestin Vs Union of India

Sreekumar C. Nair Vs the Village Officer