IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 18 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A N.H)
Vs
1. K.K.DANIEL, KODAKERIL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.P.HARIDAS
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :15/01/2009
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. &
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.A.No.No.18 of 2009
-------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
GIRI, J.
State has come up in appeal against the judgment
of the learned single Judge, partly allowing the writ petition
filed by the 1st respondent herein, claiming compensation for
69 sq.m., which he claimed, belonged to him, but was taken
possession of by the State, without paying him
compensation.
2. The writ petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 75
years and is also a physically handicapped, by reason of the
fact that he is deaf and dumb. It seems that his wife is also
deaf and dumb.
3. The writ petitioner was in possession of 15.5
cents of land lying by the side of M.C.Road, at Thiruvalla.
Admittedly, an extent of 1.25 cents of land was acquired for
widening the M.C.Road in the year 1973. It is also not
disputed that by Ext.P3 Sale deed bearing No.3186/05 of the
W.A.NO.18/09
:: 2 ::
Thiruvalla Sub Registry Office, an additional extent of 48
sq.m. of land was conveyed in favour of the respondents by
the petitioner. According to the petitioner,t his left 69 sq.m.
of land sandwiched between the aforementioned 48 sq.m
and the road margin. He claimed that apart from taking
possession of 48 sq.m of land conveyed under Ext.P7 sale
deed, the respondents also took possession of the
aforementioned 69 sq.m of land lying immediately adjacent
thereto and this was done without paying any compensation
to the petitioner.
4. The learned single Judge took note of the
fact that the petitioner was in ownership and possession of
15.5 cents of land as per Ext.P4 sale deed and that
admittedly 1.25 cents of land out of the same was acquired
in the year 1973. Learned single Judge further took note of
the fact that the respondents are estopped from disputing
the petitioner’s title to the entirety of the land covered by
Ext.P1 sale deed, having taken Ext.P7 sale deed from the
petitioner for 48 sq.m of land. In circumstances where the
W.A.NO.18/09
:: 3 ::
M.C.Road was widened at that spot, by acquiring 1.25 cents
of land from the petitioner and further where the
respondents have purchased 48 Sq.m of land from the
petitioner as recently as in 2005 vide Ext.P7 sale deed, the
learned Judge came to the conclusion that the disputed area
of 69 sq.m of land lying between the 48 sq.m of property
purchased under Ext.P7 sale deed and the road margin,
should be treated as part of the registered holding of the
petitioner and covered by Ext.P4 title deed. The learned
Judge came to this conclusion on a reference to Ext.P2
report and sketch, among other documents. The learned
Judge has gone into meticulous details of the lie of the land
and the materials placed on record. The learned Judge has
also given sufficient and cogent reasons as to why the
petitioner, a senior citizen aged 75 years, and a deaf and
dumb person, who is further handicapped by the fact that
his wife is also a deaf and dumb, should not be now
relegated to the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act.
W.A.NO.18/09
:: 4 ::
We fully concur with the reasoning given by the
learned single Judge as also the findings and directions of
the learned single Judge issued in this behalf. We see no
merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(J.B. KOSHY)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge