Disposed

Habib Mohamed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2023WP(C)/39835/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition (C) No. 39835 of 2023, the High Court of Kerala directed the Special Tahsildar to immediately hear the petitioner regarding statutory interest on compensation already disbursed. The court set a one-month deadline for the Tahsildar to decide on the claim rather than adjudicating the merits itself.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Tahsildar to hear the petitioner on interest and decide it within one month.

Habib Mohamed Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 39835 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

HABIB MOHAMED, AGED 72 YEARS,
43/2679-A, SHASTHA TEMPLE ROAD,
KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682018.

¶7

BY ADVS.
ANIL S.RAJ
K.N.RAJANI
RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
ANILA PETER
SIMI S. ALI
ARSHID.M.S.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030.

¶10

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NH NO: 2, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, KERALA, PIN – 683101.

¶11

3KOCHI SALEM PIPELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
174-G, MALAYIL MAJESTY BUILDING,
NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, REFINERY ROAD,
TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI, PIN – 682031.

¶12

*ADDL.R4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM -682080.

¶13

*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.12.2023 IN
I.A.NO.1/2023 IN WP(C)39835/2023.

¶14

BY ADV.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

19.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 39835 OF 2023

¶18

-2-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner asserts that, even though the

¶21

compensation amount under Ext.P1 has already
been disbursed to him, the mandatory and
statutory interest thereon has been refused. He,
therefore, prays that respondents be directed to
pay the eligible statutory interest to him,
within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

2.Pertinently, in response to the afore

¶23

submissions of the petitioner, as made by his
learned counsel – Sri.Anil S.Raj, learned
Government Pleader – Smt.Vidya Kuriakose,
submitted that, though respondents are obligated
to pay interest if there had been any delay, it
would not arise in this case, because there is
no such delay. She added that the 2nd respondent
– Special Tahsildar, is willing to hear the
petitioner and issue appropriate proceedings in

¶24

WP(C) NO. 39835 OF 2023

¶25

this regard, if he is so interested.

¶26

3.Sri.Anil S.Raj, in reply, submitted that

¶27

the fact speaks for itself; and that, going by

¶28

the date on which the compensation amount was

¶29

paid to his client, it is obvious that a delay
has occurred. He submitted that, therefore, if
this Court is so inclined, he is willing to co-
operate with the 2nd respondent, so that they can
then take a final decision as to the amount of
interest to be paid, since his client will be
able to establish before him that there was
delay, going by the Statutory Scheme.

¶30

Taking note of the afore submissions, I
order this writ petition and direct the 2nd

¶31

respondent to immediately hear the petitioner on

¶32

the question of interest on the amount of
compensation and decide it - either acceding to

¶33

it, or rejecting it, for valid reasons; thus
culminating in an appropriate order and

¶34

WP(C) NO. 39835 OF 2023

¶35

necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than one month from the

¶36

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Needless to say, this Court has not entered
into the merits of any of the rival contentions
of the parties and all of them are left open;
with liberty reserved to the petitioner to impel
them and to pursue further remedies in future,
should the decision as ordered above end to his
detriment.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

akv

¶42

WP(C) NO. 39835 OF 2023

¶43

-5-

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39835/2023

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO: 01/09 IN
LAC NO: 02/19 ALONG WITH THE NOTE TO
AWARD DATED 31.05.2019 PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
LAC.NO.02/19/A3 DATED 31.05.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
ERNAKULAM WITH A COPY TO THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED
01.02.2023
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE BEARING
NO: C4 13204/17 ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
16.03.2023
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE BEARING
NO: A3 669/17 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.03.2023

Habib Mohamed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habib Mohamed 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

G.Jayakrishnan, S/O.K.Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Kumar K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon George. Vs the Branch Manager South Indian Bank.

Pauline Mary Vs District Collector

M/S. Chicago Constructions International Private Limited Vs Kerala Water Authority

M/S. Chicago Constructions International Private Limited Vs Kerala Water Authority