Jawahar Baby Eralil vs The State Of Kerala-Represented … on 8 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jawahar Baby Eralil vs The State Of Kerala-Represented … on 8 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10554 of 2010(T)


1. JAWAHAR BABY ERALIL,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JOHNSON BABY DEALIL,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE GOSHREE ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT

4. THE PALLIAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :08/06/2010

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     W.P.(C) No. 10554 of 2010-T
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010.

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners are non resident Indians. For settling in their native

place at Cherai, they have purchased an extent of 29.680 cents of land in

Pallippuram Village as per Sale Deed No.1026/96 dated 22.4.1996 of

Kuzhuppilly Sub Registry. The grievance raised in the writ petition is that

the 4th respondent Panchayat is proposing to acquire the above land for

implementing their project recommended by the third respondent Goshree

Island Development Authority for construction of a Ring Road, Tempo –

Taxi Stand and Office Complex – cum- Comfort Station.

2. The petitioners contend that the proposal was submitted by the

Panchayat without disclosing the fact that they are having an extent of

19.760 cents of land having road frontage to the Cherai – Paravur road. It

is pointed out that without moving the authorities in a proper manner, they

have directly approached the Government. It is in these circumstances, the

petitioners have filed this writ petition.

3. Ext.P7 is the copy of a representation submitted before the second

respondent District Collector and Ext.P8 is the copy of the representation

2

submitted by the petitioners before the Government itself.

4. Learned Govt. Pleader on getting instructions from the District

Collector, submitted that no requisition or Govt. Order for land acquisition

is received till date from the 4th respondent or any other agency for the said

project and no order is seen issued by the Revenue Department in this

regard and that the District Collector has not taken any steps for this project.

It is also pointed out that the proposal, if at all, is only at a primary stage. In

that view of the matter, there is nothing to adjudicate now regarding the

grievance raised by the petitioners.

5. Therefore, if the Government or any other authorities like District

Collector or Goshree Islands Development Authority at any time proceeds

to consider the request made by the 4th respondent, then the grievances

raised by the petitioners in Ext.P7, including the alternate proposal

suggested by them will be considered and before any administrative

sanction is issued.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No

costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *