V.P. Antony Vs State of Kerala and Special Tahasildar (LA)

High Court Of Kerala 5 Apr 2010 WP (C) . No. 11552 of 2010 (T)
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

WP (C) . No. 11552 of 2010 (T)

Hon'ble Bench

Antony Dominic, J

Advocates

Jeena Joseph, for the Appellant; No Appearance, for the Respondent

Acts Referred

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18

Judgement Text

Translate:

Antony Dominic, J.@mdashPetitioner submits that 41 cents of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 411/3, 411/2, 411/5, 411/8 of Mattur Village was

acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act under the Fast Track method. According to him, the property is having road frontage,

but however has been categorized and compensation paid, on the basis that the property does not have road frontage. As a result of this, petitioner

suffered huge loss. Thereupon he submitted Ext.P5 representation to the District Collector. It is stated that as per the endorsement made by the

District Collector on 10.11.2008, Ext.P5 representation was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for report. It is stated that there has not been any

progress in the matter. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to redetermine the

compensation payable to the petitioner on the basis that the land acquired from him has road frontage and is to be categorized on that basis.

2. Learned Government Pleader has brought to my notice the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(c). No. 29068/2009, where in identical

circumstance, a pending representation requesting for recatgorization of land involved in that proceedings was directed to be considered. It was

also ordered that in the event the decision taken by the Land Acquisition Officer was adverse to the petitioner therein, that petitioner can resile

from the consent given for proceeding under fast track method and seek reference of his claim u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. Taking into account the fact that the grievance in this writ petition is similar to the one dealt with by this Court in WP(c). No. 29068/09, I

dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.

4. That the 2nd respondent, to whom Ext.P5 representation was forwarded by the District Collector, shall consider the said representation and

pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this

judgment.

5. It is clarified that, in the event the decision taken on Ext.P5 is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to resile from the consent

given for proceeding under fast track method and seek reference of his claim u/s 18 of the Act, in which event necessary orders in this behalf will

be passed.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent for compliance.

From The Blog
Supreme Court to Rule on Multi-State Societies in IBC Cases
Oct
25
2025

Story

Supreme Court to Rule on Multi-State Societies in IBC Cases
Read More
Supreme Court: Minors Can Void Property Sales by Guardians
Oct
25
2025

Story

Supreme Court: Minors Can Void Property Sales by Guardians
Read More