LAWS(KER)-2007-11-43

BENNY ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On November 15, 2007
BENNY ANTONY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ petitions are filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings. In writ Petition No.18016 of 2007 the main relief sought for is a direction to the respondent to conduct Section 5A enquiry as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. In Writ Petition No.22454 of 2007 the prayer is to quash Exhibit P3 decision of the Land Revenue Commissioner by which he has overruled the objections raised by the petitioner therein. In Writ Petition No.23529 of 2007 the relief sought for is to quash Exhibit P1 notice dated 5.6.2006 and also Exhibit P5 decision of the Land revenue Commissioner rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner therein under Section 5A of the Act.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions are as follows: Petitioners are owners of properties comprised in different survey numbers of Manalur Village. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (General), Thrissur, had issued a combined notification under Section 4(1) read with 17(4) of the Act on 15.6.2004. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22454 of 2007 filed W.P.(C).No. 20796 of 2004 to quash the said Notification. That Writ Petition was dismissed as per judgment dated 21.12.2004. Petitioner filed W.A.No. 1340 of 2005 challenging that judgment. While the Writ Appeal was pending, Section 6(1) declaration was made on 10.3.2005. On 3.3.2006 the Writ Appeal was allowed in part. The urgency provision invoked in the Notification was quashed. Relevant portion of the Writ Appeal judgment reads as follows:

(3.) Thereafter two of the petitioners filed their objections. The Land Revenue Commissioner heard the objections and rejected the same on 14.6.2007. While the proceedings were pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner, petitioner in W.P(C).No.18016 of 2007 approached this Court for a direction to the Land Revenue Commissioner to issue notice to him and conduct an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act alleging that he had not received any notice either from the respondents or from the Land Revenue Commissioner.