Kerala High Court
Nusiba Beevi vs The Land Revenue Commissioner
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).NO. 1126 OF 2008 (H)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
NUSIBA BEEVI, AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O.SALIM, PUTHUPURAKKALMANNAYIL,
AAYIRAMTHENGU, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA NO.1, KOLLAM.
*ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED:
ADDL.R4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRIDGES SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM
*(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.01.2008 IN I.A.1202/08)
*ADDITIONAL R5 AND R6 IMPLEADED:
ADDL.R5. THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD
REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
VIP ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17
ADDL.R6. PUTHUTHERUVU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH,
PUTHUTHERUVU,
PRAYAR SOUTH
KLAPPANA
KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
*(ADDL.R5 AND R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
22.02.2008 IN I.A.2549/08)
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ALOYSIUS THOMAS
ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, SC, WAKF BOARD
ADDL.R6 BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.)
R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD
R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
.............................................................
W.P.(C).No.1126 of 2008
.............................................................
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner and her husband, were the owners of 13 cents of land in Sy.No.326A/332/4 of Perinadu village. The said land was purchased by them under Ext.P1 sale deed. It is stated that a portion of the property was initially acquired by the respondents, pursuant to Ext.P3 notification, for the purposes of construction of an approach road to the Ayiramthengu-Azheekkal bridge. The possession of the land was also taken over by the respondents since the emergency provisions under Section 17of the Land Acquisition Act had been invoked. Thereafter, by a second Notification - Ext.P4 dated 05.12.2007, the remaining extent of land comprising of 1.80 Ares of property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed was also proposed to be acquired by the respondents. The petitioner impugns the said acquisition on the ground that there was no public purpose that existed to support the acquisition covered by Ext.P4 Notification. Although, the writ petition was admitted on 09.01.2008, and there was a stay against dispossession of the petitioners from the property in question for a period of one month, which was extended -2- W.P.(C). No.1126 of 2008 from time to time, the said stay against dispossession was vacated by another order dated 10.04.2008. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing as and when moved again, and it is only now that the writ petition has come up for final disposal.
I find from a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the land in question, covered by Ext.P4 Notification, was acquired as per Award No.4/2007-2008(LAC 21/07-08). It is stated that as per the rehabilitation package agreed upon with the Jama ath authorities, it was proposed to acquire the extent of land belonging to the petitioner which was lying adjacent to a Thykkavu for constructing an alternative building for accommodating the Thykkavu. A compensation package was also approved by the District Collector and the Jama ath authorities in connection with the acquisition procedure for the construction of the Ayiramthengu bridge. The procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act namely, the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was complied with and an award enquiry notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was also issued to the Thandapper holder namely, the petitioner in the writ petition, as also to the husband of the -3- W.P.(C). No.1126 of 2008 petitioner, who was an interested party. It is stated that the said notices were not accepted by the petitioner or her husband, and hence, the notice was affixed at the place of residence. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner or her husband did not turn up for the award enquiry that took place on 22.12.2007 and it was under those circumstances, the award was passed. It is is also stated that since the land owner did not surrender the possession of the land, the possession had to be taken pursuant to an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam, and possession was actually taken on 04.01.2008. Thus, it is seen that the entire procedure in connection with the Land Acquisition has been complied with, and the petitioners had not done anything in the matter pursuant to the order staying dispossession being vacated. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that, the present writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P4 Notification has now become infructuous. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/13.06.16 //true copy// P.A. To Judge -4- W.P.(C). No.1126 of 2008