Disposed

Manju Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2019WP(C)/159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition by subjecting it to directions issued in earlier judgments regarding compensation/surrender benefits. The respondents were ordered to adhere to previous court directions and complete necessary steps within five months.

What did the court decide?

Directions of previous judgments are to regulate the case; respondents to adhere thereto and complete steps within five months.

Manju Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 159 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 MANJU ABRAHAM AGED 51 YEARS W/O.K.A.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT KALLARACKL, MUTTAMBALAM (P.O.), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SUSEELA JOSE AGED 52 YEARS W/O.JOSE JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KUDAGASSERIL, MUTTAMBALAM(P.O.), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.ARUN BOSE SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.R.REJI

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 002.

¶14

4 THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 001.

¶15

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NATTAKOM VILLAGE OFFICE, NATTAKOM(P.O.), KOTTAYAM DISTRICTR, PIN-686 013.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C)No.159/2019

¶20

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

W.P.(C)No.159 of 2019

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2019

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

i) To issue a declaration that the delay in disbursing the benefits ordered in Exhibit P4 due to the petitioner on account of the surrender of their 20 cents of property lying in resurvey No.339/16/8, 339/1/28 of Nattakam Village, Kottayam District, for constructing ErakadavuManipuzha Road in Kottayam District, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the 3^rd respondent to implement Exhibit P4 government dt. 04.10.2018 forthwith and extent the benefits ordered Exhibit P4 to the petitioners also on account of the surrender of their 20 cents of property lying in resurvey No.339/16/8, 339/1/28 of Nattakam Village, Kottayam District, for constructing Erakadavu - Manipuzha Road in Kottayam District.”

¶28

Heard Sri. M.V. Thamban, the learned counsel appearing

¶29

for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

The matter in issue is covered by the judgments of this Court as one rendered in W.P.(C)No.35722/2018 and in Ext.P6 judgment dated 3.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.39171/2018 etc. Accordingly, it is ordered that the directions and orders already issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.35722/2018 as well as in Ext.P6 judgment dated 3.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.39171/2018

¶31

W.P.(C)No.159/2019

¶32

¶33

etc., will regulate this case as well and the respondents concerned more particularly, the 3^rd respondent District Collector and the 1^st respondent State Government will adhere to the said directions as covered in the said judgments in the case of the present petitioners as well. The entire steps in this regard should be duly completed within 5 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. For the sake of clarity, it is ordered that the Registry will place a copy of the judgment dated 3.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.39171/2018 as an appendix to this judgment.

¶34

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

¶35

sd/-

¶36

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(C)No.159/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.421/08 DATED 043.02.2008 OF THE KOTTAYAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.10.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.5925/15/RD DATED 13.11.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(RT) NO.4064/2018 RD, DATED 04.10.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2018 IN WP(C)NO.39171/2018. APPENDIX BY COURT ORDER.

¶43

COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.39171/2018.

¶44

TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE.

Manju Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Abraham 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adinarayana Swamy Vs the Sub Registrar

Annie Anotny Vs the District Collector

Guru Swamy Vs State of Kerala

Pathumma Beevi S, Vs the District Collector

Pathumma Beevi S. Vs the District Collector

K.Bahuleyan Nair@Karakulam Babu Vs State of Kerala