AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by judgment dated 26.02.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 34783 of 2007, the respondents 1 to 3 therein preferred this appeal. The respondents herein are the petitioners 1 to 4 in the above mentioned Writ Petition. They filed the said Writ Petition with the following prayers :
i. call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 to P4.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the compensation prescribed u/s 17 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, for having acquired and taken possession of the petitioners properties under the emergency provisions of the Act.
iii. cost of this proceedings; and
iv. such other reliefs that this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case
The appellants claimed that they are the owners of the property having an extent of 98.2 Ares, situated in Kynagiri village of Kuttanad taluk with the residential building thereon. The said property was acquired admittedly invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It appears that the possession of the property was also taken, even before the compensation amount is offered to the respondents, invoking the extra ordinary powers u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act.However, the full factual details of the Writ Petition in our opinion may not be necessary for the present purpose, as the appellants admitted the fact that the property of the respondents was in fact acquired and possession was taken as alleged by the respondents herein.
By the judgment in appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the appellants herein to pay compensation to the petitioners (respondents herein) for acquisition of their property within a period of three months. The relevant portion (paragraph 5) of the said judgment reads as follows:
In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents 1 and 3 to pay compensation to the petitioners for acquisition of their property, within a period of three months from today. The petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation amount and under protest they can seek reference of the matter.
In view of the undisputed fact that the property of the respondents is acquired by the State, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment in Appeal. The respondents have a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India not to be deprived of their property without the payment of compensation. The appeal is without any merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.