Kerala High Court
Jesue George vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4549 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
JESUE GEORGE
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, OLIKUNNEL HOUSE, CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673 017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR
SMT.K.JASMIN BABY
SMT.K.S.SUMITHA
SRI.R.SANJITH
SMT.S.SIMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 505.
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (B & R)
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE-673 020.
6 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A)
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673 020.
7 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE-673 020.
8 THE CO-ORDINATOR
KOZHIKODE TOWN ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CIVIL
STATION, KOZHIKODE-20.
W.P.(C) No.4549 of 2013
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP,
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR(P) FOR RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.4549 of 2013
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 4549 of 2013
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following
reliefs:
"A. To call for the records leading to the
issuance of Exhibit P1 and all other attendant and
incidental proceedings thereto, examine it legality,
propriety and quash the same by issuing a writ of
certiorari.
B. To pass any other and such other
orders as this Honourable Court deem fit to pass in
the nature and circumstances of the case.
C. To award cost of this proceedings to the
petitioner."[SIC]
2. When this Writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Government Pleader takes
me through paragraph No.3 of the statement filed by
the 6th respondent. The same is extracted
hereunder:
"3. It is submitted that the widening of the
Panathu Thazham - CWRDM road is a vital necessity
for the traffic and for the bonafide public purpose and
considering the seriousness of the case the Land
Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram in
Proceeding No. LRC4 53035/2010 dated 31.12.2010
has accorded sanction u/s 17(4) of the LA Act to
dispense the 5A enquiry. Accordingly 4(1) notification
was published in the Kerala Gazette No. 37 dated
10.1.2011 and in dailies namely Mathrubhumi Daily
dated 21.1.2011 and Desabhimani Daily dated
22.1.2011. The substance of the 4(1) notification was
served on all interested parties. A true copy of the
notice served on the petitioner is produced herewith
and marked as Annexure R6(a). The notice was
published in the Village Office, Chevayur and site on
25.8.2011. The said notice was published in the
village office, Chelavoor and site on 25.8.2011 and
published in the Village Office, Kottooly and site on
25.8.2011. Therefore the last date of the 4(1)
notification is 25.08.2011. The Declaration u/s 6 of
the LA Act has been approved by the Land Revenue
Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ref. No.
LRC4. 29640/12 dated 23.8.2012 and 24.8.2012
respectively. The declaration was published in Kerala
Gazette No. 1752 dated 24.8.2012. True copy of the
above is produced herewith and marked as Annexure
R6(b). Therefore the publication of declaration u/s 6
is within the period prescribed under LA Act."
In the light of the above contention, I think
there is no merit in this writ petition. According to
the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings were
elapsed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
no document is produced in support of the contention
in paragraph No.3 of the statement. If an authorised
officer filed a statement before this Court narrating
the facts, this Court need not disbelieve the same
unless there is any reply to that statement.
Therefore, this Writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
