Roy George vs Government Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 12514 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12514 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 December, 2022

Kerala High Court

Roy George vs Government Of Kerala on 23 December, 2022

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 22662 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:

            ROY GEORGE
            S/O.VARKEY, VALLAMATTOM, PANDAPPILLY PO,
            THOTTAKKARA KARA, ARAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
            TALUK
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.V.M.KURIAN
            SMT.GEETHU C.S.
            SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN
            SRI.K.T.THOMAS


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
            IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
            KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
    2       THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
            PROJECT CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661.
    3       THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
            MVIP DIVISION III, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661.
            BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   23.12.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      -2-
W.P.(C). No. 22662 of 2013



                             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                             ======================================================

                              W.P.(C) No.22662 of 2013
                         =============================================================

                 Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022

                                          JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P3 application of the petitioner for reassignment of about 60 Cents of land out of the total extent acquired from the petitioner and take appropriate decision.

b) Direct respondents 1 and 2 not to assign or otherwise dispose of the land acquired from the petitioner for the dumping yard of MVIP to others.

c) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case." (sic)

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his 85 cents of

agricultural land was acquired in the year 1983 for using as

dumping yard during the construction of the left bank main canal

of the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. It is the case of

the petitioner that the canal construction was completed long ago

W.P.(C). No. 22662 of 2013

and the water is being discharged through the canal. It is the

further case of the petitioner that about 60 cents of the acquired

land is lying as waste and unused for long period. It is submitted

by the petitioner that the said land is not required for the purpose

for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose. The

petitioner has made application for reassignment of the said land

to him. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no statutory bar

against the reassignment to the original owner in such situation.

When the application submitted by the petitioner was not

considered, this writ petition was filed.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

Government Pleader.

4. After arguing for some time, the counsel for the

petitioner submitted that he will be satisfied if a direction is

issued to the Government to consider Ext.P7 and pass appropriate

orders within a time frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing

W.P.(C). No. 22662 of 2013

to the petitioner. Since the prayer is limited for a consideration of

Ext.P7, I think the same can be allowed. All the contentions

raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following

manner:

1. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. The petitioner is free to produce a copy of this writ petition along with the certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance.