Partly allowed

Kochurani, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Mar 2022WP(C)/2574/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry into the petitioner's claim that her land was acquired in 2005 without compensation. The order mandated the collection and hearing regarding the claim within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Collector to cause an enquiry into the claim of land acquisition in 2005 and award compensation if established.

Kochurani, 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

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2574 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

KOCHURANI, AGED 69 YEARS
W/O.C.P.THOMAS, KAVARAPARAMBU,
NAYATHODU (PO), ANGAMALI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS.
M.V.THAMBAN
R.REJI
THARA THAMBAN
B.BIPIN
ARUN BOSE
SUNEESH KUMAR R.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶10

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 030.

¶12

4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), NH NO.2, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 101.

¶13

SMT.MABLE .C, KURIAN,SR.G.P

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 2574/22

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with an allegation that though 0.05 Ares of her land was acquired in the year 2005,

¶19

no compensation has been afforded to her until now.

¶20

2 . The afore allegation made on behalf of the petitioner

¶21

by her learned counsel – Sri.R.Reji, was vehemently controverted by the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Mable C. Kurian, saying that there is nothing on record to show that any portion of the property in question had been acquired or taken possession in the year 2005 or thereafter, as alleged by her. She submitted that, therefore, on the basis of a speculative cause of action, no reliefs can be sought for by the petitioner; and thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶22

3 . No doubt, as rightly stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is only the petitioner’s allegation that her land had been acquired in the year 2005. However, since the petitioner is a 69 year old lady, I am of the firm view that she should be afforded an opportunity of being heard by the District

¶23

¶24

WPC 2574/22

¶25

Collector, who should then verify the files and ascertain whether

¶26

any extent of her property had been indeed acquired. This is

¶27

because, if, through an enquiry, the acquisition of the petitioner’s property is established, then certainly, the District Collector or such other competent Authority must take necessary action to compensate her appropriately.

¶28

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and direct the 3 rd respondent – District Collector to take up Ext.P8 representation of the petitioner and cause an enquiry, either himself or through the competent Authority, as to whether any portion of her property had been taken over in the year 2005 for widening of the road in question.

¶29

If, through an enquiry, it is established that the petitioner’s property had been acquired, the District Collector will take appropriate steps as per law to compensate her appositely, if she is so entitled.

¶30

Consideration of Ext.P8 shall be completed by the District Collector, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two

¶31

WPC 2574/22

¶32

¶33

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and

¶34

all consequential action thereto also will be completed without

¶35

any avoidable delay, but not later than six months thereafter, subject to the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation to be determined.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RR

¶38

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

WPC 2574/22

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2574/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
27.05.2005.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
21.06.2021.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
ACQUISITION OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.02.2013
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
04.12.2014 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.02.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3 452/11
DATED 06.12.2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.01.2022 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.

Kochurani, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochurani, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alekutty George Vs the State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

T.Sudhakaran Nayar, Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs the Tahisldar

M/S. Lulu Cyber Park Ltd. Vs M/S. Zeron Consulting (P) Ltd.

K.B.Jayakrishnan Vs the Tahsildar