IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23976 of 2010(V)
1. S.NAJEEB RAWTHER, SHALIMAR MANZIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :04/08/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.23976 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
For the purpose of widening the Punalur-Ponkunnam Road
under the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), certain
properties of the petitioner have been acquired. The properties
are comprised in Survey Nos.319/1/128 and 319/1/228 of
Piravanthoor village, Pathanapuram Taluk. The reference
numbers are LAC No.103/06 and LAC No.115/06. The
compensation amounts have been received under protest. It is
pointed out that the matter has been referred to the Sub Court,
Kottarakkara in L.A.R No.93/2007 and L.A.R No.94/2007.
2. It is pointed out by the petitioner that there are certain
improvements like a 12 feet wide main Gate worth Rs.75,000/-,
Iron Grill fittings worth Rs.50,000/- and rubble wall construction
at height of 3 meters for a length of 300 meters. It is further
pointed out that the petitioner filed a proper application before
the Land Acquisition Officer to get copies of various documents to
W.P.(C) No.23976/2010 2
verify whether these improvements have been properly valued by
the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner was given a reply as
per Exhibit P4 directing to remit certain amounts towards fees for
issuing copies, which the petitioner has already remitted as per
Exhibit P5.
3. The petitioner submits that thereafter the respondents
are trying to take possession of the property and to remove the
improvements. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner filed
an application as I.A.No.1199/2010 in L.A.R No.93/2007 for
appointing an Advocate Commissioner for conducting a local
inspection and make a report with regard to the improvements in
the property. Apprehending immediate and emergent action on
the part of the respondents in taking over the possession of the
property and in removing the improvements etc., this writ
petition was filed.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the
matter. It is explained therein that the petitioner has received
the compensation amount under protest. A notice was served on
15.05.2010 in Form No.12 as per Rule 15(3) informing the
W.P.(C) No.23976/2010 3
awardee to vacate and deliver possession of the land to the
Special Revenue Inspector. The details of the steps taken by
them have been explained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter
affidavit. According to them, the petitioner has been successively
evading the attempts to take possession of the property.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the application for appointment of an emergent
Commissioner has been allowed by the court below and the
petitioner will be depositing the batta today itself.
6. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the
apprehension of the petitioner that the improvements will be
removed immediately which will destroy the evidence in support
of the plea of enhanced compensation is not correct. It is
submitted that the KSTP will issue appropriate notice to the
petitioner also for availing the benefit of removal of these articles
on suitable price. It is therefore submitted that the respondents
are not taking any action at this stage to remove the
improvements of the properties of the petitioner.
Now that an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed by
W.P.(C) No.23976/2010 4
the Sub Court, till the Commissioner conducts local inspection,
the improvements mentioned by the petitioner will not be
removed from the site. Since an emergent Commissioner has
already been appointed, the petitioner will see that a local
inspection is conducted within a period of two weeks from today.
The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the
Sub Court, Kottarakkara for further action by that court. The
respondents will be free to take possession of the property but
the improvements will not be destroyed or removed till the
Commissioner visits the site and completes the local inspection.
Copies of the documents mentioned in Exhibit P4 will also be
furnished as per Rules within a period of three weeks.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp