CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 04 KL CK 0035

Kuttappan, V.K. Vasudevan, Alexander George and Lizy Jacob vs The Chief Secretary and Others

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 April 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WP (C) . No. 9373 of 2010 (V)
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 337 words

Antony Dominic, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. A direction to the respondents not to enter the petitioners'' property without formal notice is also sought.

2.

According to the petitioner''s, without giving notices, survey stones have been planted deep inside their properties. It is stated that this has been done mala fide by the 3rd respondent. Further contention is that although only 5 meters property alone is required to be acquired for widening railway lines, survey stones have been planted 25 meters inside the property.

3.

A reading of Ext.P1 shows that it is a notification issued by the respondents u/s 6 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act 1960. As per this section, where survey is ordered for the purpose or in connection with the acquisition of any land, notification u/s 6(1) has to be published in the gazette or in two daily newspapers, which in the opinion of the Survey Officer have vide circulation in the locality where the land proposed to be acquired is situated.

4.

According to the Government Pleader Ext.P1 notification was published in the gazette on 26.2.2009, in the Deshabhimani daily on 25.4.2009 and also in Malayala Manorama on 26.4.2009. Therefore there is compliance with Section 6(1) of the Survey and Boundaries Act 1960. Standing Counsel for the Railway also informs that the land in question has been identified for widening the railway lines and that it was in pursuance to the aforesaid decision Ext.P1 notification was published. Therefore, non compliance of Section 6 of the Act cannot be alleged.

5.

The other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that though what is required is only land having the width of 5 meters, survey stones have been placed 25 meters inside their property. In my view this by itself does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents as it is for the respondents to decide on the extent of land to be acquired for the project under implementation.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.