IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13583 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANUELSONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUNCIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.M. MANUEL, MANUELSONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUNCIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA STATE BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA (N.H) NO.2, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LA N.H, PALAKKAD. 3. NARAYANI, W/O. LAKSHMANAN, THARAVEETIL HOUSE, PANNIANKARA, ALATHUR TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. T.R. LAKSHMANAN, S/O. RAMAN, THARAVEETIL HOUSE, PANNIANKARA, ALATHUR TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADDL.R5: 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.06.2010 ON I.A.No.6998/10 IN W.P.(C)No.13583/10) BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R1, R2 & R5 ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R3&4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.13583/10 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.No.258/99 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 29.3.1978 IN FAVOUF OF the 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.LAC.57/09/VADAKKANCHERRY-1 DATED 29.3.10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.3.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.LAC 57/09/VADAKKANCHERRY -2 DATED 13.4.10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13583 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition the grievance raised by the petitioner is that the Special Deputy Collector, viz the 2nd respondent, who has issued Exhibit P5 has granted only seven days for the petitioner to produce documents with regard to the claim if any in respect of the amount of compensation. 2. The petitioner claims to be the creditor to the 4th respondent and another person, who is not a party to this Writ Petition. The petitioner has also filed a suit as O.S.No.258/99 before the Sub Court, Palakkad for recovery of money on the strength of a mortgage deed alleged to have been executed by the 4th respondent as surety for the transaction. The suit happened to be dismissed for default and a petition for restoration was thereafter filed. The application for restoration was allowed on condition of payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the 4th respondent herein and the said condition could not be fulfilled by the petitioner. It is now submitted that a fresh petition has been filed by the petitioner before the said Court, which is W.P.(C)No.13583/10 -2- pending. 3. In the meanwhile the petitioner was served with Exhibit P3 notice by the Special Tahsildar requiring information as to whether any appeal is pending from the decree and judgment in O.S.No.258/99. It was also informed that if the petitioner does not give the information regarding that, compensation amount determined will be disbursed to the 3rd respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent and all the rights of the 4th respondent on the property is transferred to the wife and accordingly she is entitled to be paid the compensation now. Exhibit P4 is the request given by the petitioner seeking further time to produce the documents and Exhibit P5 is the reply giving seven days' time to produce the documents. According to the petitioner since the summer holidays have started by then, the petitioner requires some more time to produce the documents, as per Exhibit P4. 5. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the claim raised by the petitioner with regard to the share of compensation. The copy of the written statement has been produced as Exhibit R4(1), a true copy of the decree W.P.(C)No.13583/10 -3- has been produced as Exhibit R4(2) and the order passed in I.A.No.2177/07 in O.S.No.258/99 has been produced as Exhibit R4(3). It is submitted that the proceedings have been finalised under section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 and what remains is only the disbursement of the amount. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the petitioner is only trying to delay the proceedings on unjustifiable grounds. The 4th respondent is disputing the transaction with the petitioner and it is submitted that there are no legal or valid grounds to support the claim raised by the petitioner. 6. What is involved is only an enquiry by the Special Deputy Collector evidently to ascertain whether the petitioner is having any right or interest, which can be recognised under the provisions of the National Highways Act. Now that the petitioner is called upon to produce documents if any and as the claim of the petitioner has not been finally determined by the Special Deputy Collector, it is only proper that some breathing time is given to the petitioner to produce whatever documents available with them. W.P.(C)No.13583/10 -4- 7. Therefore the petitioner will produce the documents which it relies upon within a period of two weeks from today before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent will consider the matter with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd and 4th respondents and a final decision will be taken within a further period of two weeks. Depending upon the outcome, the amount will be disbursed to the party concerned. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn