Disposed

Muhammed Asharaf v. the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC19 Jan 2022WP(C)/1655/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Special Tahsildar to take up and dispose of the petitioner's application for compensation enhancement under Section 28A of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act within three months without avoidable delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the pending application for enhancement of compensation under Section 28A of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within three months.

Muhammed Asharaf Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 29TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED ASHARAF AGED 82 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, N.P.5/63, MUKKUKADA, NAVAIKULAM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, MARUTHIKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695603

¶8

BY ADVS. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR AKASH S. A.MEGHA V.S.VARALEKSHMI AMRITHAPRIYA.C

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CIVIL STATION ROAD, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM:695 043.

¶11

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ADDITIONAL L.A. UNIT, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695043 M.ANIMA -G.P

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner's singular plea in this

¶17

case is that 2^nd respondent be directed to take up and dispose of Ext.P2 application, preferred by him under the provisions of Section 28A of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”

¶18

for short), within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

– 2. Smt.V.S.Varalekshmi learned

¶20

counsel for the petitioner, explains that the inordinate delay caused by the 2^nd respondent in disposing of Ext.P2 application, is egregiously improper

¶21

particularly because, Ext.P1 judgment of the Land Reference Court was issued as early as on 21.12.2019. She, therefore, reiteratingly

¶22

WP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

prayed that Ext.P2 be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the 2^nd respondent without any further delay.

¶25

In response, the learned Government Pleader – Smt.M.Anima, submitted that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P2 application to be taken up and disposed of by the 2^nd respondent in terms of law, she will not stand in the way of this Court issuing necessary orders for such purpose; however, praying that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in favour of the petitioner and leave it to the said respondent to take an appropriate decision thereon, as per law. She also added that she does not have instructions whether Ext.P2 is still pending, but that if it is so, then

¶26

necessary action will be taken without any avoidable delay.

¶27

WP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶30

writ petition and direct the 2^nd respondent to take up Ext.P2 application of the petitioner – if it is still pending – and dispose of the same, after following due procedure and after affording him an

¶31

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

SAS/19/01/2022

¶36

WP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1655/2022

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit P1 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2019 OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN LAR 361/2009 AND 604/2009 Exhibit P2 APPLICATION DATED 23.11.2020 SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 28A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894

Muhammed Asharaf v. the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Asharaf v. the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

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

K.V. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Rajamani Vs the Tahsildar

Sharafudeen Vs the Special Tahsildar

Village Officer Vs Gem Farm

Manoj Mavunkal Vs Tahsildar (Land Records)

Dr.P.S.Thaha Vs District Collector, Thiruvananhapuram