Title: SIVAPRAKASHAN v STATE OF KERALA
Citation: WP(C) NO. 14680 OF 2019
Dated on: 9.1.2024
Corum: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
Facts of the case:
Sivaprakasan filed a writ petition in this case to contest the postal department’s seizure of his land for the purpose of building a post office and employee housing. The primary question at hand concerned whether the petitioner, on the grounds that there had been a delay in using the land for its original purpose, was entitled to reconveyance of the land bought for public use. The land which was once the petitioners i.e. Mr. Sivaprakasan’s was now a post office and was acquired by the governments postal department. Although the government had compensated the petitioner for the seizure, the petitioner demanded for the right of his property which was lawfully acquired by the government.
Legal Provision:
The petitioner submitted that, since the property is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, and the property is kept vacant, that amounts to a violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Article 300 of the Indian Constitution deals with “Suits and proceedings”. It outlines the legal framework for the initiation of legal actions, including suits and proceedings, against the Government of India and the Government of a State in India. The article specifies that the Government of India and the Government of a State shall have the authority to sue and be sued in relation to their rights and liabilities. It establishes that the government, like any other legal entity, has rights and liabilities, and it can be held legally accountable in appropriate legal proceedings. Article 300A of the Indian Constitution deals with the Right to Property in India. But in this case the property obtained by the government was lawfully after following the due process of law, hence the petitioner’s contention of article 300 could not hold ground in court.
Issues for the case:
- Whether the petitioner has any right to seek reconveyance of the property acquired for a public purpose after receiving the compensation.
- Whether the delay in using the land for the purpose for which it was acquired amounts to a violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and a fraud on the power of eminent domain.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The hon’ble HC of Kerala dismissed the said writ petition on the ground for which the petitioner argued that his natural principals of justice are violated and stated that when reconveyance was purportedly ordered, equity has no application. Nor is there any scope for the principle of natural justice to operate when the person complaining of its infraction cannot show any right of his which has been violated. In the given facts of the case and the clear mandate of Section 48 of the principal Act- which was governing its field in 1955 do not discern any right of the landowners to apply for reconveyance in respect of a land which had vested in the Government long ago.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh
