← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/3736/2013disposed of

Choorakkat Janaki v. The District Collector, Kannur

2015-02-24Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/5TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 3736 of 2013 (N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- CHOORAKKAT JANAKI W/O.MUTTIL KUHIKANNAN, AGED 63 YEARS, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, PO NHEKLY PAYYANNUR VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR KANNUR, PIN 670 001.

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A) NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR PRESENTLY OFFICE AT THALASSERY, PIN 670 141.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T. R. RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 3736 of 2013 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 24/4/1998 UNDER SECTION 28A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.DDIS/C.582/5 DATED 24/3/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 5/5/2009 UNDER SECTION 28A(3) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- ANNEXURE R2(a) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2009 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), PAYYANNUR /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 3736 OF 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

Ext. P1 application filed for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been rejected by Ext. P2 order. The only reason stated therein is that such a redetermination cannot be had on the basis of a revised judgment. This view is palpably wrong in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue.

2.

Ext. P2 order is accordingly quashed and the second respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P1 application as per law. The same shall be done with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. The writ petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE