Allowed

Prakasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/2934/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's application under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding an alleged insufficient award and make a reference to the competent Authority within two weeks, or transmit it to any designated officer.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to take up the application under Section 64 of the RFR Act and refer it to the competent Authority within two weeks, or transmit it to any designated officer.

Prakasan 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

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2934 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRAKASAN

¶8

AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN, PUTHUVALCHIRA HOUSE, NADUBHAGAM MURI,
THAYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE, MANAPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA
TALUK-688 554

¶9

BY ADVS.
P.M.JOSHI
SIJI K.PAUL
BONNY BABY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA-688001

¶12

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL) ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA688001

¶13

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶14

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

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 2934 of 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022 .

¶20

The petitioner alleges that only a portion of his property and building thereon has been acquired by the requisitioning Authority under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) and that this is in violation of Section 94 of the said Act. He also impels an adscititious contention that the Award now issued is woefully insufficient and that he has, thereafter, preferred Ext.P10 application before the District Collector, under the provisions of Section 64 of the said

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 2934 of 2022

¶23

Act.

¶24

Sri.P.M.Joshi – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Exts.P4 and P6 applications, in fact, had been preferred before the competent Tahsildar under Section 94 of the “Fair Compensation Act”, but that no action has been taken thereon, thus constraining him to now prefer Ext.P10 application before the District Collector seeking a reference under Section 64 of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P10 be directed to be taken up and referred by the District Collector to the competent Authority without any further delay.

¶25

In response, Smt.Mable C Kurain – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that going by Section 3(g) of the “Fair Compensation Act”, the word Collector can also take in a Deputy Commissioner or any

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 2934 of 2022

¶28

other officers specifically designated by the Government to perform the duties of a Collector. She submitted that, therefore, if this Court is inclined to direct the Collector to take up Ext.P10, liberty may also be reserved to him to transmit it to the competent officer, if there is any notification under the afore provision.

¶29

When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear that petitioner has two limbs to his plea: namely, that his entire property be acquired under the provisions of Section 94 of the Act; and that the Award issued in his favour be referred to the competent Authority by the District Collector under Section 64 of the Act. Since Ext.P10 is an application made by the petitioner for both such purposes, I am of the firm view that the District Collector, or such other competent official, must consider

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 2934 of 2022

¶32

it and make the reference to the competent Authority under Section 64 of the “Fair Compensation Act” without any further delay.

¶33

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the District Collector to take up Ext.P10 and make a reference under Section 64 of the “Fair Compensation Act” to the competent Authority, without any further delay but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, on the other hand, another officer has been designated under the provisions of Section 3(g) of the “Fair Compensation Act”, then the District Collector shall transmit Ext.P10 to such officer, who will then Act in terms of the afore directions within the time frame fixed.

¶34

Needless to say, the petitioner’s request under

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 2934 of 2022

¶37

Section 94(1) of the Fair Compensation Act will also be considered by the competent Authority once the reference is made, since it intricately and inexorably relates to the value of compensation granted under the Award.

¶38

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶39

Raj/23.03.2022.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 2934 of 2022

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2934/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 15.9.2021 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE THYCATTUSSERY
VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
KERALA GAZETTE NO.364 (EXTRAORDINARY)
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT
2013 DATED 04.02.2020

¶45

Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE 11(1) NOTICE
DATED 01.09.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶46

Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE
APPLICATION/REQUEST DATED 28.09.2021
OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

¶47

Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER
SECTION 26 OF THE ACT DATED 22.10.2021

¶48

Exhibit P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
25.11.2021 BY THE PETITIONER

¶49

Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
12.10.2021 ISSUED BY COLLECTOR TO 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 2934 of 2022

¶52

08.12.2021 OF 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY
1ST RESPONDENT WITH COVERING LETTER
DATED 28.12.2021
Exhibit P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
11.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 11.2.2022

Prakasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakasan 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

Jayanth P.N. Vs State of Kerala

Aswathy.L Vs Sulekha P.

Laija Navabudeen Vs State of Kerala

N.Vasudevan, Vs the State of Kerala

Rajan .T.T Vs State of Kerala

Shankar Narayanan v.B., Vs the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office