Disposed

Afsath C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/7598/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dissatisfied with the partial land acquisition for road alignment, petitioners sought to invoke Section 94 of the RFRAR Act, 2013 for acquiring entire properties. The Court held it could not examine the alignment but allowed the petition to direct the District Collector to consider the acquisition applications.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent was directed to consider the petitioners' applications (Exts. P10 and P11) filed under Section 94 of the RFRAR Act, 2013 and pass orders after hearing within two months.

Afsath C 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 T.R.RAVI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7598 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 AFSATH C, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRANKANDI MARIYUMMA, ISSATH MANZIL, KOLAD , P.O PARAPRAM, PINARAI, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 741.

¶8

2 ISSATH, AGED 30 YEARS,

¶9

D/O. . CHANDRANKANDI MARIYUMMA, IZATH MANZIL, KOLAD, P.O PARAPRAM, PINARAI, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 741.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

C.P.PEETHAMBARAN P.A.SHYNA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR 670 001.

¶15

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BRIDGES DIVISION, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KANNUR 670 002.

¶16

SRI. BIMAL K. NATH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.7598 OF 2022

J U D G M E N T

Admit.

The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶23

The petitioners have challenged the alignment of the road that is sought to be put up after acquiring properties belonging to them. Several grounds are raised regarding the alignment, which this Court cannot go into in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

The petitioners have also made a prayer that the respondents may consider acquiring the entire properties belonging to them since their remaining properties will go waste after acquisition of a portion alone, by invoking the power available under Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶25

The petitioners have preferred Exts. P10 and P11 applications for the above purpose. The above contention is fully justified.

¶26

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take up Exts.P10 and P11 representations filed

¶27

W.P.(C) NO.7598 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

under Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioners, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI, JUDGE

DSV/15.06.2022

W.P.(C) NO.7598 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7598/2022

¶36

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 211-2017 ISSUED BY THE PINARAI VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 22-01-2021 ISSUED BY THE PINARAI GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶38

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 14-3-2019 ISSUED BY THE PINARAI GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE PUBLICATION NO 374 DATED 1-2-2022. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15-07-2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-72020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 9-11-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF LIBRARY BUILDING AND SHOP BUILDING. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ME BEFORE THE 2DN RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶41

Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF SKETCH OF THE ALIGNMENT OF THE ROAD

Afsath C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsath C 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

Ashraf.K Vs the Tahsildar

Shyju E, Vs the Authorised Officer

Sreeja Ajayan, Vs the Tahsildar

Asaharuddeen.K.K Vs the District Collector, Kannur

Palempadiyan Alavi Vs State of Kerala

N Kalyan Kumar Vs Jayasree