JOSE PANNIKOT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 order issued by the 2 nd respondent - District Collector, under the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Fair Compensation Act' for short), on the specific ground that said Authority obtained no competence to have issued the said order.

(2.) Shri.K.R.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, made submissions with specific reference to Sec. 15 of the 'Fair Compensation Act', predicating that clause 2 thereof would make it indubitable that the objections of the owner of a property sought to be acquired have to be made to the Collector, who will have to hear him and then make a report, to be forward to the competent Government. He pointed out that it is for the competent Government to make an order, which, under the rigour of clause 3 thereof, has been postulated to be final.

(3.) Shri.K.R.Vinod, thereafter, submitted that, from the facts of this case, it would become perspicuous that objections of his client were heard by the Collector, but that instead of forwarding his report to the Government, he himself issued Ext.P3 final order under Sec. 15 of the 'Fair Compensation Act'; thus vehemently arguing that the entire process is vitiated and liable to be interfered with by this Court.