High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 02 KL CK 0090

Moncy Joseph vs State Of Kerala And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 February 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil K. Narendran, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 4551 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 488 words
1.

The petitioner, who was the owner of 0.43 Ares of property in Re.Sy.Nos.477/6-38 and 477/6/31-1 of Pathanapuram Village in Pathanapuram

Taluk, along with a three-storeyed building situated therein, which he obtained from his father, Late Chacko Joseph, on the strength of a will deed

No.21/1991 dated 11.11.1991 of the Sub Registrar Office, Pathanapuram, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 5 to grant him sufficient time to shift the business conducted in the property mentioned in

Exts.P7 and P8, at any rate, two months from the date of issuance of the award.

2.

On 22.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record a copy of the

petitioner's title deed and this writ petition was ordered to be listed on 23.02.2021, along with W.P. (C)No.2027 of 2021.

3.

On 23.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration along with the connected matter, the learned Senior Government Pleader, based

on the instructions received from the 5th respondent Land Acquisition Officer, submitted that, since the petitioner failed to produce the original Will,

the award amount has already been deposited before the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Kollam. The learned counsel for the petitioner

sought time to get instructions.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5.

By a separate judgment dated this date, W.P. (C)No.2027 of 2021 filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed as infructuous.

6.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, on the ground that the petitioner could not

produce the original title deed, the 5th respondent Land Acquisition Officer, who has passed an award dated 10.02.2021, as evidenced by Ext.P7

notice dated 17.02.2021, has already deposited the award amount of Rs.45,90,893/- before the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Kollam.

Ext.P7 notice is one issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, in exercise of the powers of the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

7.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner requires only a breathing time of one week to

shift the business conducted in the building in question.

8.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court deem it appropriate to grant one week from today, i.e.,

24.02.2021, for the petitioner to shift his business from the building in question.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. In case the petitioner is not giving vacant possession of the building, within the aforesaid time, it would be

open to the 5th respondent Land Acquisition Officer to take coercive steps, in accordance with law.