Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J
CONSTANCE ERIC – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/3035/2008
Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act - Sections 18(2), 31(2) - Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to expedite consideration of the petitioner's applications for correction of award and enhancement of land value.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owned a land parcel with a building that was acquired and demolished. An award was passed, but the survey number was reportedly incorrect. The petitioner sought corrections and enhancements regarding the property value, with applications pending before the Land Acquisition Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court ordered the Land Acquisition Officer to address the pending applications regarding the correction of the award and enhancement of land value, emphasizing timely resolution within three months.
Issues: Whether the Land Acquisition Officer should correct the erroneous survey number and process the enhancement application appropriately.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of addressing administrative errors in land acquisition processes and expediting the adjudication of pending claims.
Final Decision: Writ Petition disposed of with directions to address pending applications.
J U D G M E N T
--------------------
Petitioner is the owner of 4.5 cents of land comprised in Sy. No.1013/A-3-1 of Thycaud Village in Thiruvananthapuram District and a building, No.TC 26/839, situated in that property. According to the petitioner that land including the building was acquired and the building was demolished also. It was further averred that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award as LAC No.4 of 2005 on 9.9.2005 and notice of award dated 20.10.2005 was issued to the petitioner. Her further case is that in the notice of award the survey number of the acquired property is erroneously recorded as 1013/A6 instead of 1013/A-3-1. Since the pattadar of the property covered by Sy.No.1013/A6 is else-one that person's name was shown as the owner and the person in possession of the property acquired. It was further averred that when the petitioner came to know about this mistake, she filed Exhibit P3 application on 28.2.2006 before the Land Acquisition Officer to correct the mistake in the award. Petitioner also filed Exhibit P4 application under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the matter for considering the enhancement of land value claimed by her. According to the petitioner both the applications are pending.
2. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent, Land Acquisition Officer, to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in Exhibits P3 and P4 applications filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that in case the Land Acquisition Officer had already referred L.A.C. No.4 of 2005 under Section 31(2) of the Act to the Sub Court for considering the question of apportionment, it is for the petitioner to get herself impleaded in that proceedings also and seek her claims.
Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction and observation.
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.
vsv
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. =====================
J U D G M E N T
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
