Dismissed

George Prasad v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2020WP(C)/14758/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a belated reference application for land acquisition compensation. The Court held the time-bar under the Land Acquisition Act applicable, allowing the petitioner to pursue pending Section 28A proceedings instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed, declining interference on the impugned order rejecting the reference application.

George Prasad Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14758 OF 2011(T)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

GEORGE PRASAD

¶8

S/O.K.V.NINAN, KUZHITHATTIL, FRIENDS AVENUE,, PALATHURUTHU, VYTTILA P.O.,ERNAKULAM

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.SINDHU MANOJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT VIDHYA A.C- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C). No. 14758 of 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, whose property having an extent of 0.41 Ares comprised in Sy.No.225/3 of Pattom Village was acquired for widening of Pattom-Medical College-Ulloor-Kochulloor by the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 02.09.2008 by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refer his case to the respective reference Court for determining the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1.

¶20

On 01.06.2011, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The respondents were directed to file counter affidavit within a week.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶23

The sole issue that arises for consideration in this

¶24

W.P.(C). No. 14758 of 2011

¶25

-3-

¶26

writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P3 order, whereby the request made by the petitioner for reference stands rejected for the reason that, it was a belated request.

¶27

Going by the express provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, an application under Section 18 has to be preferred within 6 weeks of receipt of notice from Collector under Section 12(2) or within 6 months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. In the instant case, the application made by the petitioner is admittedly after the expiry of the period prescribed in Section 18 of the Act. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted on Ext.P3.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already invoked Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court in respect of similarly situated land and that application is pending before the Collector.

¶29

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed,

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 14758 of 2011

¶31

-4-

¶32

declining interference on Ext.P3 order; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the application filed before the Collector under Section 28A of the Act, for re-determination of the amount of compensation, which is still pending consideration.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶35

das

¶36

-5-

¶37

W.P.(C). No. 14758 of 2011

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN LAC NO.328/06

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.07.2008 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.09.2008.

George Prasad v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Prasad v. the 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

Adheena Joemon, Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Babu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala Academy of Pharmacy Vs the Director of Medical Education

Tono Thomas Vs Ms.v.Asha

Anil Kumar N. Vs State of Kerala

The Laxmi Meghan Educational Trust Vs the State of Kerala