THOMAS Vs. SPL. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants have challenged acquisition of their property invoking Sec. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The challenge before the learned Single Judge failed, and the Appellants are now before us in appeal under Sec. 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

(2.) The property in question is 4.5 ares in re-survey No. 54/69 of Meenachil Village in Kottayam District. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, on 14/7/2009, accorded administrative sanction for 258 works. One of the works was the construction of a drain and footpath, as well as connecting the Ramapuram-Pala road to the River View road. The Assistant Executive Engineer addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, stating that the proposed road is important in Pala town and that its development is essential to reduce traffic congestion, and considering there would be an administrative delay, Sec. 17(4) of the Act of 1894 be invoked. The District Collector also addressed a letter to the property owner under Sec. 17(1) of the Act of 1894 on 17/3/2010 (Exhibit P3).

(3.) Petitioner No. 5 submitted representation on 4/7/2010 (Exhibit P5) which yielded no result. On 5/4/2011, notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894 (Exhibit P4) was issued for the acquisition of the subject property. The Petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 25860/2011 challenging the rejection of representation dtd. 4/7/2010, the order dtd. 17/3/2010 invoking the urgency clause, and notification dtd. 5/4/2011 issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894. Refuting the averments in the Writ Petition, a counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.4.