Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J
Koshy Philip – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of prior litigations and alternate proposal for land acquisition. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. sia report fails to address petitioner's alternate proposal. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. non-compliance with division bench directive renders reports invalid. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. set aside reports; restart proceedings for proposal consideration. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 27th day of March, 2026 The challenge in this writ petition is as against Ext.P9, report of the Social Impact Assessment Team in terms of Section 4 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the 2013 Act). In fact, as per the reliefs originally sought for in the writ petition, a finding of the Assistant Engineer, PWD - if it can be called a finding - was sought to be quashed. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was amended, seeking quashment of Ext.P9 S.I.A report, Ext.P10 report of the Expert Group, and also, Ext.P11 decision of the appropriate Government. The amendment sought for has been allowed and hence the reliefs are liable to be considered.
2. The compass of controversy in this writ petition centers around an alternate
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
