IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1686 of 2010(I)
1. S.RUBEENA, VRINDHAVAN, MANGALAPURAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONR OF LAND REVENUE,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
5. THE CHIEF EXECUIVE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.1686 of 2010 (I)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner submits that she owns 1.25 acres of land in
R.S.No.514/1-2 of Methonnakkal Village in Thiruvananthapuram
Taluk. It is stated that Section 4(1) notification under the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 05/10/2006 proposing to acquire
various plots of land including that of the petitioner. Thereupon the
petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation to the Minister for Revenue
requesting for exclusion of her property. It is stated that the
representation was forwarded to the 4th respondent for enquiry and
appropriate action. Accordingly, an enquiry was held and Ext.P5
report was submitted recommending to exclude a portion of the
petitioner’s property. It is stated that final orders in the matter was
not passed, and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing WP(C) No.24120/2008 resulting in Ext.P6 judgment dated
20/10/2008 directing the 4th respondent to take a fresh decision on
Ext.P4, after notice to the petitioner and the requisitioning
authority. It is stated that accordingly the 4th respondent considered
WP(C) No.1686/2010
-2-
the matter, conducted enquiry and passed Ext.P8 proceedings
recommending to exclude 8 ares of land situated in the north-
western corner of the petitioner’s property, which is also included in
the section 4(1) notification. It is stated that Ext.P8 is pending
consideration of the 2nd respondent and that the recommendation
therein can materialise only if the 2nd respondent passes final orders
in the matter. It is complaining of delay on the part of the 2nd
respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P8, this writ petition has
been filed.
2. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P8 has been submitted
by the 4th respondent as early as on 02/03/2009, there is no reason
for the delay in taking a decision on Ext.P8.
In view of the above, I direct the 2nd respondent to pass final
orders on Ext.P8 with notice to the petitioner and the 5th
respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight
weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy
of this writ petition.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg