Mercy Joy vs The District Collector
2024 Latest Caselaw 10109 Ker

Kerala High Court

Mercy Joy vs The District Collector on 5 April, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
          FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                            WP(C) NO. 22050 OF 2013


PETITIONER:

              MERCY JOY
              AGED 67 YEARS
              W/O.JOY, ASHIJANA HOUSE, NECHOOR P O,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 664

              BY ADV SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
              KAKKANAD, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 030

     2        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION
              MUVATTUPUZHA, MUDAVOOR P O, PIN-686 661

     3        THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
              PWD ROAD DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661

BY ADV.

              SRI. B.S. SYAMANTAK, GP



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22050 OF 2013


                                 2




              P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
          --------------------------------------------
              W.P.(C) No.22050 of 2013
         ----------------------------------------------
       Dated this the 05th day of April, 2024



                          JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following

prayers:

"1. The act of the respondents not considering the application of the petitioner is wrong of illegal.

2. The petitioner entitled to get the enhanced compensation as per Exhibit Pl award.

3. The respondent ought to have passed an order in Exhibit P2 application, without any delay." SIC

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that

Ext.P2 application, which is said to be filed under WP(C) NO. 22050 OF 2013

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is not

considered.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think, there can

be a direction to the authority concerned to consider

Ext.P2, if it is received in time.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with

the following directions:

i. The 1st respondent is directed to consider

and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2, if

the same is received and pending as on

today, as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within a period of four months WP(C) NO. 22050 OF 2013

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

ii. The petitioner will produce a certified copy

of the judgment, along with a copy of the

writ petition with exhibits, before the 1st

respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE WP(C) NO. 22050 OF 2013

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22050/2013

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

P1:-A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT LAR 130/07 SUB COURT MUVATTUPUZHA DTD 16/6/2009

P2:-A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITINOER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD NIL

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE