Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The grievance of the present writ petition is that the petitioners' property having an extent of 2.90 Hectares in Resurvey No.181/2-71, Block No.3 of Veiloor Village was not acquired for the purpose of establishment of Life Science Park by the 4th respondent. It is also stated that no award was passed till 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 30 of 2013) and therefore all actions taken under the erstwhile Act are invalid. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents produced in the writ petition clearly W.P.(C) Nos.36741 and 2025:KER:5774 show that their property was not part of the acquisition and the property in Thandapper Account No.2083 belonging to diseased Padmanabhan Bhargavan was acquired and not the property belonging to the petitioners in Resurvey No.181/2-71. It is also stated that the property belonging to the petitioners was given a new Resurvey No.182/2-71 and with a new Thandapper Account No.9669 as seen from Ext.P11. The Thandapper Account No.9669 was created in the name of A. Saraswathy on 28.04.2006. It is stated that Padmanabhan Bhargavan died in the year 1982. Thus the petitioners' case is that the properties covered under Resurvey No.181/2-71 are not notified for acquisition.

4. The Government has filed an additional counter affidavit on 21.06.2023 stating that the acquired property belonged to one Padmanabhan Bhargavan, the predecessor-in- interest of the writ petitioners. It is stated that the said Padmanabhan Bhargavan had properties in Resurvey No.181/2- 71, Block No.3 of Veiloor Village, Thiruvananthapuram District as per Thandapper Account No.2083. As per the basic tax register of Veiloor Village, late Padmanabhan Bhargavan was in possession of 8.6228 hectares of land. After his death, his wife A.Saraswathy W.P.(C) Nos.36741 and 2025:KER:5774 got 2.90 hectares of land as one of the legal heirs. At that time, a new sub-division was created for this 2.90 hectares of land as 181/2-71 for the purpose of mutation and also for collection of land tax.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the KSIDC and learned Government Pleader.

W.P.(C) Nos.36741 and 2025:KER:5774

7. It is to be noticed that in the writ petition filed earlier, which is produced as Exhibit R4(a), the contention was that the Section 4(1) notification showed part of the property in survey No.181/2 was included and a declaration under Section 6 (1) was also issued. It was their contention that in the Section 6 (1) declaration, the property of Smt. A. Saraswathi is comprised in Resurvey No.181/2-71 and comprised in Thandapper No.9669 was not included. The prayers in the writ petition filed earlier were to quash the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 (1) declaration. Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 (1) declaration, were unsuccessfully challenged the award was passed within the time granted under Section 11A of the repealed Land Acquisition Act.

EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.

1561 OF 2015 AND CONNECTED CASES EXHIBIT R4 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THANDAPPER REGISTER OF LATE BHARGAVAN WITH NO. 2083 EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THANDAPPER REGISTER OF A. SARASWATHI WITH NO. 9669.

EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THANDAPPER REGISTER OF SARAADADEVI AND EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THANDAPPER REGISTER OF SARADEVI AND 7 OTHERS WITH NO. 13330 EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THANDAPPER REGISTER OF SARAADADEVI, D/O. KUNHUNNO WITH NO. 13331.