Remanded

K.v.Paul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019WP(C)/8576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging the diversion of differently acquired land intended for a Mini Market to construct a Revenue Tower. The court remitted the issue to the First Respondent to decide on the petitioner's representations in accordance with law. Output: This is a concise summary adhering to constraints.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the 1st Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representations (Exts.P11 to P15) with notice to the petitioner and 6th respondent within one month.

K.v.Paul Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.V.PAUL, S/O K.G. VARGHESE, AGED 58 YEARS, COUNCILOR, WARD NO 26, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY AND RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, WEST CHALAKKUDY, NEAR IRMLP SCHOOL, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

3 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANNTHOL, THRISSUR 680 003.

¶14

5 THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

6 THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY CHALAKUDY P.O, 680 307, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018

¶18

7 THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDI P.O, PIN 680 307, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶19

R1-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶20

GP SHRI. RON BASTIAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶26

“i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits-P6 and P7;

¶27

ii) Declare that Exhibits-P6, and P7 are unsustainable in the eyes of law;

¶28

iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or appropriate Writ or order or direction to the respondents quashing Exhibits-P6 and P7;

¶29

iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate Writ, Order or direction to the 7^th respondent to disclose necessary records, details and materials supporting impugned Exhibits-P6 and P7 to the petitioners within a reasonable time;

¶30

v) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring that amends or cancels Exhibits-P6 and P7”.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶32

learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a member of the 6^th respondent

¶34

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018

¶35

¶36

Municipality. It is submitted that an extent of 2.80 acres of land in Sy.No.134/2, 3,4,5, 133/4 of the Perambra Village had been acquired for the purpose of construction of a Mini Market by the Municipality. It is contended that, without constructing the Mini Market and the commercial complex as envisaged, the 6^th respondent is taking steps to hand over possession of part of the property for the construction of a Revenue Tower. It is submitted that the funds for the acquisition of the property had been released specifically for the purpose of construction of the Mini Market and that the diversion of part of the property so purchased for any other purpose is completely unsustainable. The learned counsel would contend that Exts.P11 to P15 complaints had been preferred before the appropriate authorities inter alia seeking action under Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 for rescinding the resolution, but no steps have been taken thereon.

¶37

A counter affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the 4^th respondent-District Collector, wherein it is contended that the Chalakkudy Municipality has offered one Acre of land in

¶38

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018

¶39

¶40

the acquired property for the construction of the Revenue Tower. It is submitted that the Municipality has a liability of 3.5 crores with regard to the acquisition of land and for other purposes and that the Municipality has informed the Government about the availability of the land. It is stated that the Government has not taken any decision in the matter. The learned counsel for the Municipality submits that the issue is to be appropriately considered by the Government, taking note of the contentions of the Municipality as well.

¶41

5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of

¶42

the opinion that the issue raised by the petitioner is liable to be considered by the Government in accordance with law. It is for the 1^st respondent to take an appropriate decision on Exts.P11 to P15 representations preferred by the petitioner.

¶43

In the result, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P11 to P15 representations preferred by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well as the 6^th respondent. Orders shall be passed

¶44

¶45

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018

¶46

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further steps with regard to the property in

¶47

question shall await the orders to be passed by the Government.

¶48

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

mpm

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF 3260/2007/LSGD	THE G.O(RT) NO DATED 29-11-2007.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF 61/08 DATED 21	THE NOTIFICATION NO A2- -11-2008.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 127 04-05-2012.	THE NOTIFICATION NO 4/2012/LSGD DATED
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF 20-04-2012.	THE RESOLUTION NO.1 DATED
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF 3139/2012/R.D	THE G.O(RT) NO. DATED 05-06-2012.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF 15517 DATED 23	THE RESOLUTION NO 25.G1- -12-2016.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF 03-03-2017 ALO	THE RESOLUTION NO 8 DATED NG WITH SKETCH.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF 21-11-2017 ISS TO THE 1ST RES DATED 21-11-20	THE LETTER DATED UED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PONDENT NO C9/36596/16 (3) 17.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF 04-03-2017 ISS	THE REPRESENTATION DATED UED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF 12195/10(1) DA	THE LETTER NO R3- TED 18-12-2017.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF RESPONDENT DAT	THE OBJECTION TO THE 1ST ED 19-01-2018.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF 19-01-2018 FIL RESPONDENT.	THE OBJECTION DATED ED BEFORE THE SECOND

¶58

WP(C).No.8576 OF 2018

¶59

¶60

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19-01-2018 FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19-01-2018 FILED BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19-01-2018 FILED BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.

¶61

// TRUE COPY //

¶62

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.v.Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Paul 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joshy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Viji Williams Vs Aneesh P.B.

Marutham Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Society of the Sisters of Holy Cross, Vs the District Collector and Others

Rajalekshmi M. Vs State of Kerala

M.N.Venugopal Vs State of Kerala