Allowed

Narankulangara Kallyani v. the Special Tahsildar (La)

Kerala HC26 Oct 2018WP(C)/7676/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment held that an application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A cannot be rejected for lack of a certified award copy if one is produced. The 1st respondent was directed to consider the application on merits and refer it to the appropriate court within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P1 on merits and refer the same to the appropriate court within one month.

Narankulangara Kallyani Vs the Special Tahsildar (La) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 7676 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

NARANKULANGARA KALLYANI AGED 67 YEARS KAITHAPARAM AMSOM DESOM,KANDOTHRA POST, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) LAND ACQUISITION,EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY PROJECTPAYYANNUR 670 307,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR 670 001.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

VINITHA B GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).7676/18

¶16

¶17

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶18

W.P(C).No. 7676 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 26^th day of October, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to refer Exhibit P8 application to the Sub Court, Payyannur for redetermining the compensation awarded under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shot, 'the Act'). A further direction is also sought for to re-consider Exhibit P1 application.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner as Exhibit P1 on the ground that it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the award was untenable. It is stated that a certified copy of the judgment was produced along with the application and a further copy was produced at the time of hearing. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in Balakrishnan v. Special Tahsildar [2006(3) KLT 1000] has clearly held that the application filed within time under Section 28A of the Act cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was not accompanied by a certified copy of the award which is applied for and obtained by or on behalf of the person invoking Section 28A. It is stated that since the petitioner had produced a certified copy of the award relied on, the application ought to have been considered and

¶23

¶24

WP(C).7676/18

¶25

referred to the appropriate court for consideration. Though it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there was an order of rejection issued pursuant to Exhibit P6, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶26

that the said rejection was not communicated to the petitioner.

¶27

This Court had in Sahid v. District Collector [1997(1) KLT 461] held that an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act filed within time cannot be rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment relied on.

¶28

In the above circumstances and in view of the assertion that the petitioner had produced a certified copy of the award before the 1^st respondent, I am of the opinion that the 1^st respondent is duty bound to consider Exhibit P1 request on merits and refer the matter in accordance with the statutory provisions. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P1 request made by the petitioner and to refer the same to the appropriate court in accordance with law. The order shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

vgs

WP(C).7676/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-062005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS UNDER SECTION 28A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1-12-2012 IN W.P.C NO 7412 OF 2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8-62016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO NARANKULANGARA KARTHIYANI, THE SISTER OF THE PETITIONER

¶41

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5-62017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶42

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 4-7-2017 EVIDENCING THE PRODUCTION OF THE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF LAR NO. 224/2001

¶43

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12-7-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶44

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN L.A.R NO. 224/2001 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶45

EXHIBIT P8

¶46

A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 28A(3) LAND ACQUISITION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS.

Narankulangara Kallyani v. the Special Tahsildar (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narankulangara Kallyani v. the Special Tahsildar (La)

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

V.P.Asokan Vs Commissioner of Excise

K.Sridharan Vs Excise Commissioner

Rajan T.V. Vs State of Kerala

R.Sankara Narayanan Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Gopinath v. Vs State of Kerala