The Court rejected the petitioner's claims that more land was acquired than notified and the classification was incorrect, noting such factual disputes require competent forums. The petition was dismissed in favour of invoking alternative remedies, excluding the pendency period from limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
JAMES K.JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O. JOSEPH, KANNAMPADA MATTATHIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR
KARA,KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KIDANGOOR.P.O, PIN-686572.
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
RESPONDENT/:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE.P.O., PIN-686002, KOTTAYAM.3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT DIVISION OFFICE, REST HOUSE COMPOUND, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661.4 SPCL.THAHASILDAR LA(N.H) CHANGANACHERRY-686101. BY ADVS.SRI.H.PRAVEEN KOTTARAKARA
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSAY-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
2
JUDGMENT
Sri.T.M.Abdul Latheef, argues on behalf of
the petitioner that the respondents -
Authorities have acquired more lands than that
werenotified;andfurtherthatthe
classification of the acquired land is also
incorrectly done.
2.The learned counsel explained that even
though the notification of proposed acquisition
was only 0.0061 Acres of land and though this is
the extent shown in the Award of Land
Acquisition, in fact and in truth, much larger
extent has been taken possession of from his
client. He argued that this can only be
construed as being encroachment; and thus prayed
that this Court direct the competent Authorities
to cause an enquiry, particularly when the
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
3
nature of land had also been wrongly classified
in the revenue records, as also in the Award.
3.Sri.Riyal Devassy – learned Government
Pleader, opposed the afore submissions of
Sri.T.M.AbdulLatheef,sayingthatthe
petitioner never had a case in the past, when
the acquisition had been completed, that larger
extenthadbeenacquired,orthat
classification of the property was wrong. He
submitted that, in any event, such issues cannot
be decided by this Court, while acting under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
must be directed to be impelled by the
petitioner before the competent Forum.
4.I must say that there is great force in
the afore submissions of the learned Government
Pleader because, the contentions of the
petitioner are in the realm of facts, which will
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
4
require assessment of documents and other
germane inputs, which cannot be done by this
Court while exercising writ jurisdiction.
5. That said, I notice that this writ
petition was admitted by this Court in the year
2013 and some orders were also issued, including
for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
Obviously, therefore, if this Court is now to
direct the petitioner to invoke his alternative
remedy, he must be given the benefit of having
the period when this writ petition was pending
before this Court, excluded from the stand point
of limitation as per the Statutory Scheme.
In the afore circumstances, I dispose of
this writ petition, leaving liberty to the
petitioner to invoke his alternative remedy
before any competent Court or Forum; for which
purpose, all contentions are left open. I also
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
5
request the learned Court/Forum, should the
petitioner approach it resultant to the afore
liberty, to consider exclusion of the period
from 22.03.2013 until the date on which a
certified copy of this judgment is received by
the petitioner.
I make it clear that I have not entered into
the merits of any of the rival contentions and
that all of them are left open.
After I dictated this part of the judgment,
Sri.T.M.Abdul Latheef – learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the amount under the
acquisition Award with respect to the property –
subject to the afore dispute, is deposited by
the Authority in the Treasury Account, for the
cited reason that there was an attachment over
it. He submitted that this attachment has been
lifted and therefore, sought liberty to his
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
6
client to approach the competent Authority for
disbursement.
If the attachment reflected on the property
has already been lifted as stated by the
petitioner, then he will be at full liberty to
approach the competent Authorities with evidence
for the same; in which event, necessary steps
for disbursement of the amount, subject to the
above dispute, shall be taken and completed
without any avoidable delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
7
APPENDIX OF WP(C)No.3826 of 2013
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT |
PI |
TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED25.06.1993 |
|---|---|---|
EXHIBIT |
P2 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THESAME PERIOD BELONG TO THE WIFE OF THEPETITIONER DATED 25.06.1993 |
EXHIBIT |
P3 |
THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.B605/10 DATED 8JUNE 2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THEPETITIONER |
EXHIBIT |
P4 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR THE MEETINGDATED 10.07.2012 STANDS ADJOURNED TO 25.07.12 |
EXHIBIT |
P5 |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 3RDRESPONDENT DATED 5.02.2013 |
EXHIBIT |
P6 |
TRUE COPY OF PASSPORT PAGE WHERE ENTRY INFOREIGN ENTRY 17.07.12 AND DEPARTURE ON 16.09.12. |
EXHIBIT |
P7 |
TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 03.01.2017 |
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDENT |
||
EXHIBIT |
P8 |
TRUE COPY OF SKETCH |
EXHIBIT |
P9 |
TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH |
RESPOND |
ENTS’ EXHIBITS |
|
EXHIBIT |
R4A |
TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF THEPETITIONER’S PROPERTY COMPRISED INR.S.NO.155/6 (OLD SY.NO.209/16) IN BLOCK NO.28OF ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE |
EXHIBIT |
R4B |
TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER IN RESPECTOF RE-SY.NO.155/6 IN BLOCK NO.28 OFATHIRAMBUZHA VILLAGE |
EXHIBIT |
R4C |
TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 06.08.2010ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF LAND ACQUISITIONACT |
EXHIBIT |
R4D |
TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 25.05.2010MADE UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITIONACT |
EXHIBIT |
R4E |
TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED25.08.2013 |
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2013
8
EXHIBIT R4FTRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.05.2013 OF THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT R4GTRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER’S PROPERTY.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Correct High Court can adjudicate facts regarding surplus acquisition and classification errors in a land acquisition dispute under Article 226.
Whether a petitioner who has an alternative remedy and has long-pending petition must be directed to invoke such remedy without excluding the pendency period.
James K.Joseph
Government of Kerala
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court