Allowed

Syed Muhammed M.K. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2024WP(C)/10381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Collector to quantify and finalize compensation of Rs. (amount unspecified) for 0.21 Ares of land already utilized for a highway project. The Court held that the State must pay the difference and disburse it to the petitioner within one month, treating the quantification as an award under the Land Acquisition Act 2013.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 2nd Respondent to quantify compensation for 0.21 Ares within 3 months and authorize an officer to do so; order the 1st Respondent to disburse the amount within 1 month.

Syed Muhammed M.K. Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10381 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SYED MUHAMMED M.K.,AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. MUSTHAFA RAWTHER, MANGAMPARYIL HOUSE,
EAST MARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 686673

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

P.K.IBRAHIM
SREEJI K.B.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS (G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682030

¶14

3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),

¶15

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H NO.1, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682030

¶16

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶17

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROAD) DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686673

¶18

5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶19

PWD (ROAD) SUB DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686673

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

GP - DEEPA V.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.03.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) No.10381 of 2023

¶24

¶25

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶26

................................................................. W.P (C) No.10381 of 2023

¶27

................................................................. Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2024

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to ensure payment of compensation to him by taking appropriate follow up action on the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. It is averred that the petitioner is in possession of certain extent of land covered by Ext.P1. Proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the land in the possession of the petitioner. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that compensation was paid only for an extent of 1.61 Ares of land whereas land taken from his possession was 1.86 Ares. Later by Ext.P14 proceedings issued by the Government a direction was issued to the PWD authorities as follows:

¶30

“I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform you as follows. The matter relates to according sanction for acquisition of 0.21 Ares of land in Marady village of Ernakulam district for the construction of Thekkady State Highway-NAS road. From the report of Special Thasildar (LA), Koothattukulam, it has been observed that the land has already been utilized for the project. As such according sanction for acquisition of 0.21 Ares of land in Marady village of Ernakulam district for the construction of Thekkady State Highway – NAS

¶31

WP(C) No.10381 of 2023

¶32

¶33

road at this point of time has no relevance since the land has already been utilized for the project. Hence it is requested to give compensation to the landholders as per the norms. ”

¶34

Later on the PWD authorities had requested the Special Tahsildar (LA),

¶35

NH No.1, Kakkanad as per Ext.P15 to fix the compensation due to the petitioner so that necessary proposal for allotment of fund could be submitted before the Government.

¶36

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein in paragraph 8 it is stated as follows:

¶37

“8. It is humbly submitted that LA Activities can only performed by a Land Acquisition Officer when he has been appointed as Land Acquisition Officer by the District Collector and advertised through Gazettee as the Land Acquisition Officer. In this case 3^rd respondent is not appointed as Land Acquisition Officer in this case and also found that the land for which compensation needed by petitioner were included in Sy.No.380/6-2 would not come under Section 4(1) notification and declaration. It is also admitted that 3^rd respondent is not the competent authority for decision in the writ petition. Hence the petition may dispose with no merits and cost to Government.”

¶38

Learned Government Pleader on the strength of the said counter affidavit would submit that after the acquisition proceedings are over the office of the Tahsildar (LA) has been abolished and that only after a fresh notification in this regard is issued by the Government the 3^rd respondent could initiate further proceedings in the matter.

¶39

WP(C) No.10381 of 2023

¶40

¶41

It is to be taken note that by Ext.P14 the Government has considered the issue and found that since the property has already been taken over and utilized for the project, there is no purpose in initiating the acquisition proceedings in respect of 0.21 Ares of land and that necessary compensation should be given to the land owners as per the norms and based on which Ext.P15 communication was issued to the Special Tahsildar (LA), NH No.1, Kakkanad to quantify the amount that is to be paid to the petitioner. The stand taken in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted and that they cannot wait for a notification issued by

¶42

the Government to finalise the proceedings as decided by the Government in Ext.P14. Therefore I am of the view that a direction can be given to the 2^nd respondent to finalise the proceedings as ordered in Ext.P14 issued by the Government. It is made clear that the 2^nd respondent can authorise an officer to do the needful in this regard.

¶43

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to quantify the compensation amount due to the petitioner in respect of 0.21 Ares of land in Marady Village of Ernakulam District which has been taken over for construction of Thekkady State Highway-NAS road and finalise the proceedings within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The fixation of the compensation amount by the 2^nd respondent could be treated as an award under the Act 2013, and the amount quantified by the 2^nd

¶44

WP(C) No.10381 of 2023

¶45

¶46

respondent as directed above shall be disbursed to the petitioner by the

¶47

1^st respondent within a further period of one month thereafter.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM

JUDGE

cks

WP(C) No.10381 of 2023

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10381/2023

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT OF TITLE` `BEARING NO. 3562/97`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.849/2004` `DATED 26.02.2004`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DOCUMENTS NO.` `2201/2005 DATED 29.03.2005`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DOCUMENTS NO.` `2353/2005 DATED 30.03.2005`
`Exhibit-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL` `RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER`
	`SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION` `ACT 1894`
`Exhibit-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVERSE OF THE FORM-D` `GIVING DETAILS OF THE LAND AND THE` `VALUE OF THE LAND FOR PAYMENT ISSUED BY` `THE` `SPECIAL` `TAHSILDAR` `(LA),` `M.V.I.PROJECT, KUTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM` `DATED 03.05.2011`
`Exhibit-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `02.01.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`
	`03.10.2018 OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR` `(LA),` `M.V.I.PROJECT,` `KUTHATTUKULAM`
	`ADDRESSED TO THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,` `PWD, MUVATTUPUZHA`
`Exhibit-P8(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `10.10.2018 FORWARDING EXT.P8 TO THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`
	`05.11.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE` `2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR`

¶57

WP(C) No.10381 of 2023

¶58

¶59

Exhibit-P10TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
30.04.2021 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Exhibit-P11TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER DATED
17.01.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P12TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.02.2022 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER
Exhibit-P13TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.10.2021 OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P14TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.11.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
CHIEF ENGINEER
Exhibit-P15TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22.12.2021 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT
ITS ENCLOSURE

Syed Muhammed M.K. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Muhammed M.K. v. the 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

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Kunhi Thampatty P.K ( Ambadi Kovilagam Valiya Thamburatty ) Vs the District Collector

O.J. Kuruvilla Vs State of Kerala

Lalitha Vs State of Kerala

K.Jayachandran, Vs the District Collector, Kollam

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, Vs State of Kerala