SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
AMINA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 29461 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Latheef P.K.
For the Respondents: Sri.Sunil Nath

The competent authority must address compensation claims for land acquisition and property damage in a timely manner.

Headnote:The petitioner submitted that during the construction of a railway overbridge, a portion of her land was acquired and damages caused to her property. The court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation for compensation as per law within two months. The main question was whether the authority would address the grievance effectively. The court concluded by ordering the competent authority to act expeditiously.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims land acquisition and damage. (Para 1)
2. court directs authority to address compensation. (Para 2)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court stating that, in connection with the construction of the Vadanamkurussi Railway Overbridge near her property, a portion of her land has been acquired by the 1st respondent, and the construction activities have also caused damage to her remaining property. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 2nd respondent, pointing out the aforesaid aspects and seeking compensation for the land acquired as well as for the damage caused. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of submitting the said representation, she has not been compensated accordingly.

2. I have heard Sri. Latheef P.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

Having taken into account the contentions raised in the writ petition as well as the submissions made across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the 2nd respondent or the competent authority, to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top