Disposed

Saleena Beevi v. District Collector

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024WP(C)/31744/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-award of compensation for business loss due to land acquisition. Court directed the Special Deputy Collector to consider the petitioner's claim and documents within two months, granting her liberty to produce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's claim and Ext.P4 request within two months, with notice to petitioner and Municipality Secretary.

Saleena Beevi Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 31744 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SALEENA BEEVI AGED 49 YEARS AGED 49 YEARS, D/O ABDUL MUTHALIC, MALLAYIL VEEDU, VADAKKAUMTHALA KIZHAKKU MURI, VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM, ., PIN - 690518 BY ADVS. UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL P.PARVATHY JAI GOVIND M.J.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION RD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691013

¶10

2 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) NHAI, CIVIL STATION KOLLAM,, PIN - 691013

¶11

3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR NHAI KOLLAM,), KAVANAD, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691003

¶12

4 * ADDL. R4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – * IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER THE ORDER DTD. 18.10.23 IN WP(C)

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR.GP - PREETHA K.K.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C). No.31744 of 2023

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶19

- - - - W.P.(C) No.31744 of 2023

¶20

- - - - Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner claims to be an entrepreneur and was running a business in the name and style 'Star Opticals'. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that no amount has been awarded to her as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶23

The petitioner was a tenant and the shop was being run by the petitioner since the 2013 on the basis of a lease agreement executed with the owners of the building, for which tax was remitted by petitioner as is evident from Ext.P1 tax receipt. Ext.P2 is the licence issued by the local authority. The land, where the building was situated was proposed to be acquired in connection with the expansion of National Highway 66 and thereupon the petitioner was forced to abandon her business in the year 2022, since the licence of the petitioner was not renewed after 2021 citing that there was a standing order of the National Highway authority not to renew the licences of the shop rooms. Since no

¶24

W.P.(C). No.31744 of 2023

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

compensation amount was awarded to the petitioner, she has preferred Exts.P3 and P4 complaints, to which Ext.P5 reply was obtained as per the Right to Information Act, wherein it is stated that since the establishment was not working at the time of the notification, the petitioner is not entitled for any rehabilitation compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P6 submits that till 2021, the licence was renewed by the local authority.

¶27

Heard the learned Government Pleader also, who upon instructions submitted that since the establishment was not functioning at the time of the notification, the petitioner is not entitled for any rehabilitation compensation.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 request submitted by the petitioner, and consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P6 communication issued by the local authority. The petitioner will be free to produce all the documents in support of her contentions. A decision shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent as directed above within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a

¶29

W.P.(C). No.31744 of 2023

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner as well as the Secretary of the Karunagapplly Municipality.

¶32

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶33

sm/

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

W.P.(C). No.31744 of 2023

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31744/2023

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING DATED 12/01/2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY DATED 13/07/2018 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/05/2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/05/2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TTO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/05/2023 UNDER THE RTI Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14/06/2023 ISSUED UNDER THE RTI FROM THE OFFICE OF THE KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY

Saleena Beevi v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleena Beevi v. District Collector

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

Reghuvaran.P.a, Vs State of Kerala

Bini Denson, Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Saji George Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Abraham, Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan v Vs State of Kerala