IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 997 of 2008()
1. JANAKEEYA SAMITHI, WALAYAR DAM P.O.,
... Petitioner
2. D.THOMAS, S/O. DAVID,
3. FATHIMA MOIDU, W/O. MOIDU,
4. RAJKUMAR @ KANNAN, S/O. MANI,
5. SAKUNTHALA, W/O. RAJKUMAR, -DO- -DO-.
6. UDUMAN, S/O. SAYED MOHAMMED,
7. V.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,
8. BALKEES, W/O. KUNJAHAMMED,
9. RADHA VIJAYAN, W/O. VIJAYAN,
10. SUDHEVAN, S/O. KANDANKUTTY,
11. DHANUSHKODI, S/O. RAMANKUTTY,
12. MUTHUMANICKAM, S/O. RAMASWAMY, D.NO.95,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF PALAKKAD
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :11/06/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No.997 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of June 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.2060/08 dated, 24.3.2008.
2. Appellants before us are the petitioners in W.P.No.2060/08. In the petition
filed, they had called in question the correctness of the endorsement/order issued by
the District Collector dated, 5.2.2008.
3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the
District Collector has no authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to
decide whether the lands in question notified under Section 4(1) of the Act requires to
be exempted or not. Therefore, it is stated the endorsement/order passed by the
District Collector is one without jurisdiction and without authority of law.
4. The State Government had issued 4(1) notification with an intention to
acquire large extents of land for the purpose of construction of an Integrated Cheque
Post at Walayar in Block No.32 of Pudussery East Village in Palakkad District through
Fast Track Mechanism.
5. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the lands belonging to the writ petitioners,
they had approached the Honourable Chief Minister to intervene in the matter and to
direct the District Collector to drop the acquisition proceedings in so far as the
petitioners lands are concerned. On the request made by the petitioners, the
Honourable Chief Minister had directed the District Collector to look into the grievance
of the petitioners.
6. After considering the grievance of the petitioners, the District Collector is of
the opinion that the lands belonging to the petitioners cannot be dropped from the
acquisition proceedings.
W.A.No.997 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
7. Under Section 5(2) of the Act persons who are objecting to the inclusion of
their lands under notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act can file their
objections. After receipt of such objections, the sub section mandates that the District
Collector has to consider their objections and prepare a report and submit it to the
State Government for its approval and further proceedings under that Act.
8. In the instant case that stage is not yet reached. The District Collector, in
our opinion, has only expressed his opinion with regard to the claim made by the
petitioners that too in view of the directions issued by the Honourable Chief Minister.
In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the District Collector has passed an
order rejecting the claim of the petitioners which power he does not possess.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the District Collector
is either without jurisdiction or without authority of law. In that view of the matter, in
our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by
the petitioners. We are in full agreement with the findings and conclusions made by
the learned Single Judge. Therefore, while affirming the findings of the learned Single
Judge, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and we do so.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
jes