Dr.C.C. Raveendra Nathan vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 12937 Ker

Kerala High Court

Dr.C.C. Raveendra Nathan vs State Of Kerala on 8 December, 2023

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 20832 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          DR.C.C. RAVEENDRA NATHAN
          AGED 78 YEARS
          S/O. LATE CHATHUNNY, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
          KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 686.
          BY ADVS.
          P.R.VENKATESH
          SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
          WORKS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
    2     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          PWD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 706.
    3     JOJI,
          CONTRACTOR, KOTTUKAPALLY, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD
          678 010.
OTHER PRESENT:

          SR.GP. SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(c) No. 20832 of 2020
                                  2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

landed property covered by Ext. P1 Assignment Deed.

Out of the said property, an extent having 3 mtrs

width and 200 mtrs length was acquired for widening

of Vaniampara - Erattakulam road by the PWD. The

petitioner states that the said extent of land was

taken from his possession without paying any

compensation. The petitioner, relying on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State

of Himachal Pradesh & Others 2020 (2) SCC 569,

submits that, depriving a person of his property

without paying any compensation is violative of the

Constitutional Right of a citizen under Article 300 A.

The petitioner had preferred Ext. P4 representation

before the 2nd respondent seeking compensation for

the property acquired. Since no action was taken

thereon, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the

following relief:-

"a) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action for granting of adequate compensation for unauthorisedly taking possession of the property for widening the Vaniampara -

Erattakulam PWD road according to the market value of the property forthwith;"

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Since the entitlement of the petitioner for

compensation has to be decided by respondent No. 2,

this Court is of the view that, the 2 nd respondent can

be directed to consider Ext. P4 representation.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd

respondent to consider Ext. P4 representation, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

The order shall also be communicated to the

petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

                               MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
bnu                                     JUDGE



                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENMOM ASSIGNMENT

DEED DOCUMENT NO. 2332/1979 AT THE SRO, ALATHUR.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY IN OLD SURVEY NO. 25C/3.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TANDAPER RECEIPT NO. KL 0901040 1551/2020 DATED 27.5.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17.12.2019.