Partly allowed

Jacob Mathew, v. Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/231/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, via a writ petition under Article 226, directed the Special Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's claim statement under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within two months, ensuring notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, other legal heirs, and the Grama Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the Ext.P5 claim statement with notice to the petitioner, other legal heirs, and the 2nd respondent within two months, affording an opportunity to be heard

Jacob Mathew, Vs Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.231 OF 2021(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JACOB MATHEW, AGED 81 YEARS S/O.MATHAI, PALATHINKAL VEEDU, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 314, PRESENTLYAT PRINCE BUSINESS BUREAU, OVERSEAS MANPOWER RECRUITING AGENTS, 10413, 1ST FLOOR, RIZVI HOUSE, HILL ROAD, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN SHRI.GIRISH KUMAR V.C

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOCHI CORPORATION, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019.

¶11

2 MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 314.

¶12

SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY -SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.231 of 2021

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

¶18

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and pass order in Ext.P5 claim statement dated 10.09.2010 submitted by the petitioner under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within the time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1^st respondent initiated proceedings for the acquisition of 18 Ares of land comprised in Block No.23 in Re.Sy.No.109/12 of Mulanthuruthy Village in Kanayannur Taluk, for construction of bus stand by the 2^nd respondent Mulanthuruthy Grama Panchayat. The brother of the petitioner, namely, Mathai Elias, was the owner and occupant of the property having total extent of 24 Ares situated on the side of Mulanthuruthy-Nadakkavu road. At the initial stage of the proceedings, the petitioner in the capacity as guardian of Mathai Elias, who was mentally ill, submitted objection against the acquisition. That objection was

¶20

¶21

WP(C)No.231 of 2021

¶22

directed to be considered by Ext.P1 judgment of this Court dated 21.07.2008 in W.P.(C)No.21551 of 2008. That objection was rejected and the 1^st respondent decided to continue with the process of acquisition, which culminated in Ext.P2 award dated 16.09.2010 of the 1^st respondent, granting a total compensation of Rs.1,01,72,632.92/- and the award amount was decided to be deposited in court, as provided under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the award notice dated 23.09.2010 and that marked as Ext.P4

¶23

is a copy of the warrant of eviction issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fortkochi dated 13.10.2010. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 claim statement dated 10.09.2010 under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Later, Mathai Elias died on 29.09.2014. The proceedings before the Sub Court, Ernakulam in LAR No.3 of 2011 regarding apportionment of compensation culminated in Ext.P6 judgment dated 29.11.2012. The proceedings in LAR No.4 of 2012 with respect to apportionment of compensation of the balance property out of 24 cents culminated in Ext.P7 judgment dated 13.12.2013. The

¶24

¶25

WP(C)No.231 of 2021

¶26

document marked as Ext.P8 is the succession certificate issued by the Sub Court, Ernakulam dated 22.08.2016 in O.P.No.2 of 2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 claim statement is still pending consideration before the 1^st respondent Special Tahasildar.

¶27

On 06.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to whether Ext.P5 claim statement is still pending consideration.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P5 claim statement filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the 1^st respondent and that, the said respondent shall take an appropriate decision in the matter after affording the petitioner, other legal heirs of late Mathai Elias, and also the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat an opportunity of being

WP(C)No.231 of 2021

heard.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P5 claim statement made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner, other legal heirs of late Mathai Elias, and also the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC

¶35

309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara

¶36

Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or

¶37

¶38

¶39

directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

¶40

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 1^st respondent shall take a decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

¶41

No order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF NO.21551/2008	THE .	JUDGMENT IN WPC
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF	THE	AWARD.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF	THE	AWARD NOTICE.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF ISSUED BY THE OFFICER FORT	THE RE KOC	WARRANT OF EVICTION VENUE DIVISIONAL HI.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY SECTION 9(3) ACT.	THE THE OF	CLAIM STATEMENT PETITIONER UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SUB COURT NO.3/2011.	THE ER	JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF NAKULAM IN LAR
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF NO.4/2012.	THE	JUDGMENT IN LAR
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF NO.2/2016 OF	THE THE	SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶51

TRUE COPY

¶52

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jacob Mathew, v. Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Mathew, v. Special Tahsildar

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

Kunjumon Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

M.C.Pappy Vs District Collector

Binu C. Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Agnas George Vs the District Collector, Kollam

Manoj Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

Chitra College of Nursing Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences