Kerala High Court
Shyla vs The District Collector on 27 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 29068 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 SHYLA, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O.SOMASUNDARAN, JAZ VILLA,
MEENATHU CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM - 691 581.
2 SOMASUNDARAN, AGED 86 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, JAZ VILLA,
MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT
- 691 003.
BY ADVS.
PRATHEESH.P
ANJANA KANNATH
T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM - 691 013.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A.(N.H), CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM - 691 013.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, TC 36/414 (5),
KOYIKKAL VEEDU, KAVU LANE, PALKULANGARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024.
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD SECTION, BEACH ROAD,
PALLITHOTTAM, THARAMAKULAM, KOLLAM - 691 001.
SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN - SR.G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 29068/21
2
JUDGMENT
Amidst the various allegations, averments and assertions made
and urged in this Writ Petition, the petitioners only seek that their
representation, namely Ext.P2, preferred before the 1st respondent
- District Collector, be directed to be taken up and disposed of as
per law.
2. The afore prayer of Sri.Pratheesh P - learned counsel
for the petitioners, was answered by Smt.Mable C. Kurian -
learned Government Pleader, saying that the request made in
Ext.P2 cannot be acceded to, since what the petitioners effectively
require is that the acquired land be given back to them. She
submitted that it has been now well settled, through various
judgments, that such a course is not possible.
3. In reply, Sri.Pratheesh P. submitted that his clients are
not asking for return of the property per se, but that the
provisions of Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules be also
WPC 29068/21
taken into account by the competent Authority, while dealing with
the property in question. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that
Ext.P2 be directed to be taken up and disposed of on its merits.
4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is prima facie
evident that the request of the petitioners for return of the
property per se may not be possible to be acceded to. However,
since they say that in Ext.P2 they have requested that their claim
under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules be also taken
into account, I deem it appropriate to accede to the said request.
Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and direct the 1st
respondent - District Collector, to take up Ext.P2 representation of
the petitioners and dispose it of, after affording them an
opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate
order and necessary proceedings thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
I, however, make it reiteratingly clear that I have not
WPC 29068/21
considered the merits of Ext.P2 or even of its maintainability and
that all relevant issues are left open to be decided by the 1st
respondent appositely, including as to whether the petitioners
would be entitled to any relief under the Kerala Land Assignment
Rules.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 29068/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29068/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A20/2020 DATED
20/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 2/11/2021.
