Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943 PETITIONER: SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. RAJAPPEN, RESIDING AT KANNAPARAMBIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, VAZHARMANGALAM, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROAD AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001. 4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROAD DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 688001. 5 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION), MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689626. 6 TAHASILDAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK, REVENUE TOWER, CHENGANNUR, PIN- 689121. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that even without permission, the respondents have trespassed into his property and annexed certain portions thereof, for the purpose of widening the road. He accuses that this has been done without following the applicable law or the mandated procedure; and therefore, prays that they be directed to restore his property in its original condition, after constructing a wall on its boundary.
2. However, the learned Government Pleader -
Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, submitted that the afore allegations of the petitioner are not factually correct and that truth has been stated by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed by him. He invited my attention to paragraph 3 thereof, which reads as under:
It is submitted that, the petitioner requested the PWD authorities to remove boundary stones from his property via representation dated 10.10.2019. To ensure the time completion of bridge work as the land acquisition works were not completed, a meeting was convened by MLA Sri.Saji Cheriyan at Mangalam side of the bridge
with all land owners on 01.07.2020. Since the petitioner was abroad, petitioner's brother Sri.Suresh attended that meeting. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), staffs from Land Acquisition wing, Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Overseer of PWD were also present in the meeting. In the meeting, MLA requested the land owners to cooperate for the completion of road work and directed the revenue authorities to ensure that all land owners will get compensation for the land acquired as per the RFCT LARR Act, 2013. Sri.Suresh, representing the petitioner in the meeting, did not raise any objection. He didn't even mention about any objection in the boundary stones laid in petitioner's property. Land Acquisition procedures are in progress and eligible compensation will be paid to all land owners whose land was acquired for bridge construction and road work.
3. After saying as afore, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that proceedings for acquisition have already commenced and that petitioner will be paid his eligible compensation at the earliest, but not later than one year from today. He submitted that this period is necessary because the imperative statutory formalities have to be completed.
4. I notice that petitioner has not filed any reply,
controverting the afore averments in the statement and therefore, asked Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner, whether his client will be agreeable to the afore suggestion, to which he answered to the affirmative. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, directing the competent respondent to ensure that all proceedings with respect to acquisition of the petitioner’s property - which has already been now used for the purposes of the road - is completed and the eligible compensation thereon paid to him, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/29/09/2021 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8537/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.493/2009 OF CHENGANNUR SRO DATED 16.3.2009. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.10.2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 10.10.2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE RECEIPT NO.2019/2987/4 DATED 22.10.2019 FROM THE OFFICE OF SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE DATED 6.7.2020 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.