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 2, Cited by 4]

Kerala High Court

Mariyan vs The State Of Kerala

Author: A.M.Shaffique

Bench: A.M.Shaffique

       

  

   

 
 
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

  WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

                  WP(C).No. 25070 of 2013 (G)
                  ----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
----------------

          1.  MARIYAN,
       W/O.LATE JOSEPH, RESIDING AT ODAYANCHAL IN VILLAGE
       HOSDURG TALUK, POST: PADIMARUTH.

          2.  ROSAMMA,
       D/O.LATE JOSEPH AND W/O.SIMON, R/AT UDAYAGIRI, ALAKODE
       P.O.ARIVILANHAPOYIL, ALAKODE, THALIPARAMBA.

          3.  CHACKO,
       S/O.LATE JOSEPH
       RESIDING AT ODAYANCHAL IN BELUR VILLAGE
       HOSDURG TALUK, POST: PADIMARUTH.

          4.  VARGHESE,
       S/O.LATE JOSEPH, R/AT MANADKA, BANDADKA VILLAGE
       KASARAGOD TALUK, POST: MANADKA.

          5.  SEBASTIAN,
       S/O.LATE JOSEPH
       RESIDING AT ODAYANCHAL IN BELUR VILLAGE
       HOSDURG TALUK, POST: PADIMARUTH.

          6.  T.J.THOMAS,
       S/O.LATE JOSEPH, RESIDING AT ODAYANCHAL, BELUR VILLAGE
       HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.PADIMARUTH.

          7.  SOFIYA,
       D/O.LATE JOSEPH AND W/O.JOSE
       RESIDING AT CHITTARIKKAL, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE
       HOSDURG TALUK.

          8.  PHILOMINA,
       D/O.LATE JOSEPH AND W/O.TOMY
       RESIDING AT PUNIYANGANAM, KINANUR VILLAGE
       HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KINANUR

[PETITIONEERS 1 TO 5,7 & 8 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER
       OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. PETITIONER NO.6 T.J.THOMAS)

       BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
                        SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
                        SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

                               -2-


RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------

          1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
       REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORK
       DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.

          2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION),
       (GENERAL), KASARAGOD.

          3. SECRETARY,
       KODOM BELUR PANCHAYATH, KASARAGOD.

       BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN.


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON  26-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 25070 of 2013 (G)
----------------------------

                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------

P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SEC.28A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
     ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
     26/09/09.

P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/03/2011 IN LAA NOS.16, 485 &
     489 OF 2010 & C.O.NOS.10 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS
     HON'BLE COURT.

P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/9/2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND
     RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS          :     NIL
-----------------------



                        //TRUE COPY//


                          P.A TO JUDGE


stu



                      A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
                    = = = = = = = = = = =
                    W.P.(C).No.25070 of 2013
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           Dated this the 26th day of November, 2014

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioners challenge Ext.P3, an order passed by the second respondent in an application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the petitioners, no notice was issued to them and they were not heard in the matter.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the award which is relied upon by the petitioner is not with reference to a comparable land as far as the petitioners' land is concerned. In the said circumstances, there was no necessity to rely upon the award produced by the petitioners. Whatever that might be, when the statute provides an opportunity for hearing the second respondent was bound to issue notice to the petitioners and take a decision after hearing the petitioners.

In the result, Ext.P3 is set aside. There will be a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the matter after complying the procedure prescribed under Section 28(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.


                                              A.M.SHAFFIQUE,
stu                                                 JUDGE.

                           //True copy//

                            P.A to Judge

W.P.(C).No.25070 of 2013
                            2