Allowed

Girish T.C., v. Union of India

Kerala HC11 Mar 2022WP(C)/2216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition to issue awards after specifically considering two registered sale documents (Exts.P6 and P7) to ensure the market value is fixed appropriately, in line with prior declarations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) to complete award proceedings and issue awards after considering Exts.P6 and P7 documents within three months.

Girish T.C., Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2216 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 GIRISH T.C., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, THANDASSERY HOUSE, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680569.

¶8

2 PRIYA RAJESH, W/O. RAJESH, THANDASSERY HOUSE, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680569.

¶9

3 JAYASHEELAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. SANKARA NARAYANAN, THANDASSERY HOUSE, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680569.

¶10

4 KUMATHA BHAI, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, THANDASSERY HOUSE, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680569.

¶11

5 SUKHADEV, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. SAUKARA NARAYANAN, ERANEZHATH VENGALI HOUSE, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680569.

¶12

BY ADVS. P.SATHISAN DONA AUGUSTINE

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI P.O., PIN - 110 001.

¶15

2 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA G-586, SECTOR -10, DWARAKA P.O., NEW DELHI - 110 075, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶16

3 PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, TC 36/414(5), KOYIKKAL VEEDU, KAVU LANE, PALKULANGARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2216 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

4 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)NH & COMPETENT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF NH 17 (KUTTIPPURAM - EDAPPALLY), KODUNGALLOR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 664.

¶20

5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR - 680 003.

¶21

6 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN - 695 001. SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR

¶23

ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) NO. 2216 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent, who is the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) appointed under the National Highways Act (NH Act), to issue Awards with respect to the properties acquired from them, only after adverting to Exts.P6 and P7 registered title documents, which would reflect its market value appositely. The petitioners assert that since the Awards have not been yet issued by the CALA, the said Authority is bound to do so because this Court has, in Aboobacker P.K. v. National Highway Authority of India and others (W.P.(C) No.20389/2019) , declared the manner in which he is to act in such circumstances.

¶28

The afore request of Sri.P.Sathisan - learned counsel for the petitioners, was answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Mable C.Kurian, saying that it does not require any specific directions to the CALA to act as per law. She submitted that the CALA is already in the process of settling the Awards taking note of all relevant aspects, including the documents of similar properties in the vicinity and that during such process, Exts.P6 and P7 can also be taken into account.

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 2216 OF 2022

¶31

She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed without any further orders.

¶32

Sri.Mathews K.Philip, learned standing counsel for the NHAI, adopted some of the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader, asserting that the petitioners need not have approached this Court for a direction to the CALA to act as per Aboobacker (supra). He submitted that, in any event of the matter, the determination of the Award is within the exclusive province of the CALA and cannot be dictated to do by the petitioners in the manner that they are now attempting.

¶33

When I consider the afore submissions, it is evident that the petitioners are only anxious that when the CALA issues Award adverting to Aboobacker (supra), they must also take into account Exts.P6 and P7 registered sale documents. I do not think that this would cause any prejudice to any person because, going by the declarations of this Court in Aboobacker (supra), every relevant and germane documents are required to be taken into account, in fixing the market value of the properties acquired.

¶34

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the CALA to complete proceedings with respect to the Awards to be issued to the petitioners relating to the

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2216 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

properties acquired from them, only after adverting to Exts.P6 and P7 documents and implicitly in terms of the declarations of law in Aboobacker (supra).

¶38

Needless to say, if the CALA does not issue an Award in terms of the afore directions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the petitioners are free to file an apposite application for fixing a time frame.

¶39

It goes without saying that even though this Court has directed consideration adverting to Exts.P6 and P7, the CALA will take them into account only if it is within the time periods as are mandated and within the distance as is postulated under the relevant Rules and Regulations.

¶40

At this time, Sri.P.Sathisan, learned counsel for the petitioners, added that these two documents were taken into account by the CALA in similar matters. If this is so, certainly the said Authority will act keeping this in mind, while the afore directions are completing.

¶41

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

stu

¶43

WP(C) NO. 2216 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2216/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 3A NOTIF DATED 08/06/2018	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ICATION NO.S.O.2364(E) .
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 3A NOTIF DATED 25/06/2019	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ICATION NO.S.O.2122(E) .
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF HE 3 A NOTIFICATION 22/01/2020.	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION NO.S.O.308(E) DATED
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY 1ST 01/12/2021.	REQUEST UNDER RTI ACT PETITIONER DATED
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 01/01/2022.	REPLY TO EXT.P4 DATED
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24/03/2018	SALE DEED NO.370/2018 OF VADANAPPALLY SRO.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 26/03/2019	SALE DEED NO.449/2019 OF VADANAPALLY SRO.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF HE THALIKULAM VILLA	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BVRS IN GE OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.
Exhibit P8A	TRUE COPY OF THE IN ENGADIYOOR VI ACT.	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BVRS LLAGE OBTAINED UNDER RTI

Girish T.C., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish T.C., v. Union of India

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

Green Worth Rocks and Sands Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Naseema.C.M, Vs the State of Kerala

Jasmine Joseph Vs the Sub Registrar

Prabhakaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Koshy Zacharia Karuvelil Vs Mr. Vishnu Raj

Mary Koshi Karuvelil Vs Vishnu Raj