R.Placid vs Secretary To The Local Self … on 17 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37245 of 2008(H)


1. R.PLACID, S/O.RABENS, AGED 61,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, MATTATHU VEEDU,
3. SAROJINI AMMA, D/O.NANIYAMMA,
4. SATHYPALAN, S/O.NEELAKANTAN,

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
                       ...       Respondent

2. KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, SAKTHIKULANGARA.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SIJU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :17/12/2008

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       W.P.(C) No.37245 of 2008
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      Dated: 17th December, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

Adv.Mr.C.Unnikrishnan, Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf

of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. I have heard the submissions of

Mr.Siju Kamalasanan, counsel for the petitioners and

Mr.C.Unnikrishnan.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Corporation is not

ready to pay the market price for their properties which are proposed

to be acquired/purchased under the direct purchase scheme for the

purposes of the Corporation’s dumping yard. Counsel for the

petitioners submits that the Corporation is willing to pay only the rate

which was granted at the time when other portions of their

properties were acquired. Standing Counsel for the Corporation

submitted that when acquisition is by direct purchase, the price to be

paid and received will be a price which is agreeable to the vendor and

the vendee. The vendor cannot insist that the vendee should pay the

rate demanded by him.

3. I do not propose to go into the merits of the controversy. But

since Ext.P6 representation is seen pending before the Secretary of

the Corporation, it is only proper that the Secretary of the

W.P.C.No.37245/08 – 2 –

Corporation calls the petitioners for a discussion regarding Ext.P6 and

takes a decision at the earliest. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is

disposed of issuing the following directions:

The 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the Corporation is directed

to take up Ext.P6 immediately, call the petitioners for a discussion

regarding the issue involved in Ext.P6 and take a decision on Ext.P6

at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receipt of a copy

of this judgment. Once decision is taken, the petitioners will be

informed of the same.

srd                                 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE