Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22450 Ker
Judgement Date : 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 23898 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED RAFEEQ PALLIKUNHI
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O K.M.PALLIKUNHI, RESIDING AT KUNNIL HOUSE,
P.O.MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT DUBAI, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER,
ABDUL RAHMAN P.,, AGED 43 YEARS, KUNNIL HOUSE P.O.
MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
I.V.PRAMOD
B.VINOD
K.V.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KASARAGOD / ARBITRATOR, UNDER SECTION 3G(5) OF
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, COLLECTORATE, VIDYANAGAR,
KASARGOD-671123.
2 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR
LAND ACQUISITION (NH), ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD-671121.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23898 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that even though he has
preferred Ext.P1 application before the 1st
respondent - District Collector, under the
provisions of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways
Act ('NH Act' for short), no action has been taken
thereon by the said Authority until now; and that he
apprehends that, in the meanwhile, the compound wall
in the said property will be demolished, which will
render his application virtually infructuous.
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader,
Smt.Surya Binoy, however, in response, submitted
that the afore apprehension of the petitioner -
voiced by his learned Counsel Shri.I.V.Pramod - is
without any basis, because the wall in question
has already been measured and assessed by the
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition ('CALA'
for short), appointed under the provisions of NH
Act and consequently that the District Collector
is now only enjoined to consider whether the value
fixed for the same is correct or otherwise, based
on the relevant and Germane inputs available.
3. I must say that there is some force in the
afore submissions of the learned Senior Government
Pleader if the CALA has already measured the wall
and has evaluated its construction and cost.
However, I am of the view that since Ext.P1 is now
pending before the District Collector, it will be
prudent to allow the said Authority to take a
final decision on this aspect, so that if a
reassessment or revaluation of the wall is found
to be required by the said Authority, it will be
possible only when it is still standing.
4. In the afore circumstances and in order to
balance the rival interests of the parties, I
direct the petitioner to mark appearance before
the 1st respondent - District Collector, at 11.00
a.m. on 16.11.2021; on which day, the said
Authority will either hear him or fix another date
for hearing and then decide whether a re-
evaluation of the measurements and value of the
wall is required, in which event, necessary action
thereon shall be completed without any avoidable
delay.
5. Needless to say, until such time as the
afore exercise is completed or until the District
Collector enters an opinion that a fresh
evaluation of the wall is not necessary, action
for demolition of the same shall stand deferred.
6. It goes without saying that the District
Collector will dispose of Ext.P1 in terms of law,
following the provisions of the applicable Statutes
and Regulations, without any avoidable delay
thereafter.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/9.11
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23898/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 12/10/2021.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!