Disposed

T.Venugopal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2022WP(C)/255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment directed the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition to hear the petitioner and the fourth respondent, allowing them to produce documents to substantiate their claims before finalizing the compensation Award within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the CALA to hear the petitioner and representatives of the fourth respondent, allow production of documents, and issue an Award within three months.

T.Venugopal Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.VENUGOPAL

¶8

AGED 56 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S ARJUN MOTORS, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KADAKKARAPPALLY P O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688529, RESIDING AT PUNNACKEL VELIYIL, KADAKKARAPPALLY P O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT688529.

¶9

BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD NAMITHA JYOTHISH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶14

4 THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - (SIDCO), P B NO.50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

5 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA G 5 & 6 SECTOR-10, DWRAKA, NEW DELHI-110075, REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NHAI, NO.36/414 (3), NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALKKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.

¶16

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

6 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS) NH 66, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688539.

¶19

SRI SUDHIN KUMAR S.SC

¶20

SRI BIJU.G S.C AND SMT ANIMA.M G.P.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner says that his property, which was earlier allotted to him by the 4^th respondent through Ext.P1, has been sought to be acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI); but that, the competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act (“NH Act” for short), has informed that no Award will be issued in his favour with respect to the compensation eligible to him, unless he produces a formal “patta” or “sale deed” from the 4^th

¶26

respondent.

¶27

The petitioner says that the afore condition cannot be imposed by the CALA, since, as is evident from Exts.P1 and P2, he has obtained exclusive rights over the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

property and it does not require any further “sale deed” or “patta” to be issued by the 4^th respondent. He, therefore, prays that the CALA be directed to issue the Award in his favour without any further delay.

¶31

In response to the afore submissions of

¶32

Sri.B.Pramod – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.G.Biju – learned Standing

¶33

Counsel for the 4^th respondent, submitted that the afore assertions of the petitioner are not

¶34

tenable since exclusive rights over the property can be construed to have been transferred to the petitioner only after a “sale deed” or a “patta” is issued in his favour. He submitted that, in any event of the matter, since the CALA has not yet issued an Award with respect to the land and is only in the process of hearing objections, it is only apposite that petitioner and his client be

¶35

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

directed to be heard, so that a final decision

¶38

can be taken in terms of the “NH Act”, as also the applicable Land Acquisition statutes.

¶39

The learned Government Pleader –

¶40

Smt.M.Anima, submitted that since the CALA is

¶41

yet to issue an Award with respect to the property in question, the petitioner's cause of action projected in this writ petition can only be construed to be speculative. She added that CALA will certainly hear both sides and then take a final decision before the Award is issued.

¶42

Sri.Sudhinkumar – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, also argued in terms of the afore submissions made by Smt.Anima, saying that since the CALA has not yet issued an Award, the petitioner cannot, in a preemptive attempt, say that it can be issued only in his name. He submitted that it is for

¶43

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

the CALA to adjudicate the rival claims and then take a final decision in terms of law.

¶46

force in the above recorded submissions of the respondents because, if the Award with respect to the property acquired has not yet been issued by the CALA, then it is upto the said Authority to hear the petitioner, as also the 4^th respondent, and take a final decision based on the documents to be submitted by them in substantiation of their respective contentions.

¶47

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶48

writ petition to the limited extent of directing the CALA to hear the petitioner, as also the competent officials of the 4^th respondent, and advert to all their documents, including Exts.P1 and P2 or any other to be produced before him by the rival parties; thus

¶49

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶50

¶51

culminating in an appropriate Award, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

SAS/17/01/2022

¶56

WP(C) NO. 255 OF 2022

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 255/2022

¶59

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶60

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 08.10.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.12.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF INDUSTRIES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST DATED 02.07.2021 TO THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

T.Venugopal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Venugopal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K. Krishnakumar Vs the Chief Engineer

Pushpalatha S Jain Vs the District Collector

Abdul Basheer Vs Land Tribunal

Leela A.P Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Chacko, Vs the District Collector

Philip Vs the District Collector