High Court of KeralaWP(C)/19234/2010disposed of

Puthiya Parambath Manikkam v. The District Collector, Kannur & Another

2015-05-27Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2015/6TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 19234 of 2010 (D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------- PUTHIYA PARAMBATH MANIKKAM, W/O.M.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMANTHALI AMSOM, P.O.RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS:

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

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 19234 of 2010 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 :

COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 28.11.2000 UNDER SECTION 28A(3) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P2 :

COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1832/05A DATED 3.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P1 APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 28A(3) OF L.A. ACT P3 :

COPY OF THE FORM D CHEQUE DATED 18.11.2000 P3(a) : COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 19234 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2015

JUDGMENT

The second respondent did entertain the application put in by the petitioner under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This is evident from Ext. P3 acknowledgment of the cheque received for redetermination of the compensation.

But then Ext. P1 application filed under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected by Ext. P2 order. The reason stated therein is that the survey number of the property and the judgment on the basis of which reference is sought were not stated.

I do feel that a hyper technical approach has been adopted by the respondents in passing Ext. P2 order. The basis of the claim and also the survey number of the property were well evident while considering the application under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The basis or identity of the property will not lose substratum by the time the application under Section

W.P.(C). NO. 19234 OF 2010 2 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is considered. 4.

I quash Ext. P2 order and direct the respondents to reconsider Ext. P1 application in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE