Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.C.POULOSE, AGED 60, S/O.CHACKO versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.C.POULOSE, AGED 60, S/O.CHACKO v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - WP(C) No. 3704 of 2007(N) [2007] RD-KL 16089 (20 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3704 of 2007(N)

1. M.C.POULOSE, AGED 60, S/O.CHACKO,
... Petitioner

2. SIVAKUMAR P.N., S/O. NARAYANAN,

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent

2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,

3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANANCHERY VILLAGE

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PEECHI VILLAGE

6. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

For Respondent :SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :20/08/2007

O R D E R

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J

W.P.(C) No.3704 of 2007 N

Dated, this the 20th day of August, 2007



JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority submits that the proceedings challenged in this Writ Petition is not a proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act but under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). It is submitted that notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette of India as early as on 21.10.2005 for which nobody had filed any objection. It is submitted that the above notification was published in 'Malayala Manorama daily' dated 24.11.2005 and 'The Hindu' dated 24.12.2005 and now notice under Section 3D(1) of the Act was issued. It is also submitted that the Central Government had issued a notification on receipt of the report from the competent authority. Thereafter a notice under Section 3G(3) of the Act was issued for the purpose of assessing the land value and value of improvements. In view of the non-filing of objections to the notifications it is not possible to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the National Highway Authorities. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. It is only to be dismissed. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR

JUDGE

cks


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.