Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Dr.K.A.Jamaluddin vs The District Collector on 4 November, 2009

Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12469 of 2008(H)


1. DR.K.A.JAMALUDDIN, S/O.K.A.ABDUKUNHI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.A.AKBAR, S/O.K.A.ABDUKUNHI,  -DO- -DO

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR, KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GENERAL,

4. EDAVANAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPR, BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :04/11/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No.12469 OF 2008
                   -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners face acquisition of land for the purpose of Tsunami rehabilitation programme. According to them, the acquisition is without bonafides in as much as the proposed acquisition is after giving up an earlier proposal to acquire different sets of lands. That has been answered in the counter affidavit. Even otherwise, the petitioners themselves admit in the writ petition that the sites which were originally proposed to be acquired had thodus and chiras, though they attempt to dispute that statement of facts. The counter affidavit also discloses that electrical alignment with 11 KV lines also pass through the land that was the earlier choice. Having established the public purpose for which the acquisition is being made, the choice of land cannot be found fault with and no case of malafides or colourable exercise of power is demonstrated. The plea of the petitioner that Section 5A enquiry was dispensed with WPC.12469/08 2 also makes no difference having regard to the aforesaid finding. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.

kkb.5/11.