P.M.HAFSA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the writ petitioner. She challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner under section 5 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant is aggrieved in so far as the land, along with the building, in which the appellant is carrying on her business, is sought to be acquired. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the objections of the appellant have been considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the reasons stated for rejecting the objections could not be said to be perverse or whimsical. The learned Single Judge did not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P2 order or to grant any relief to the appellant.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) IT is true that Apex Court in Voger Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another V. State of West Bengal, 2014(1) JT 555, dealt with the issue relating to the illegality in not considering the objections of the party under section 5 -A of the Land Acquisition Act. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would submit that this is a case where 98 percent of the proposed land has already been taken possession and on the basis of the negotiation, award was passed. The building of the appellant, it is contended, has to be acquired so as to provide a bell mouth at junction and same is unavoidable. He in fact draws our attention to the following facts in the affidavit filed in the writ appeal: