CASES WHERE EXCESS AREA HAS BEEN ACQUIRED
Case Facts Judgment
1. Jose vs District
Collector
(WP(C).No. 32902 of
2004 (P))
The petitioner's case is that a portion of his
land was acquired for the above project and
in addition to acquisition, an excess of 25
sq.m in resurvey No.619/10 and 1.70 ares
in resurvey No.619/14 in Block No.11 of
Angamaly Village has been encroached by
the IIP authorities in connection with the
construction of the IIP canal.In the counter
affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, while
admitting the encroachment, the
respondents, project a case of excess
payment made to the first petitioner.
According to them, they have paid a sum of
Rs.76,600/- in the year 1996 W.P.
(C).No.32902/20047in addition to the
original compensation paid.
If the land is not
required for IIP canal,
the District Collector
shall explore the
possibility of restoring
the land to the petitioner
without any delay. In
that case, the District
Collector shall take an
independent action for
recovery of the amount
from the petitioner in
accordance with law.
2. The District
Collector vs
The District
Collector
(W.P.(C) No.
722/2016)
Petitioner had submitted a petition before
the District Collector to re-measure the
property under acquisition by stating that
there is excess land, under his possession,
included in the alignment in question.
Accordingly, land was re-measured by the
Department surveyor and revised records
were approved and old survey records R.P.
No. 698/2016 were cancelled by the
Superintendent of Survey and Land
Records, Ernakulam.
On the basis of the
application submitted by
the writ petitioners, re-
measurement of the R.P.
No. 698/20167property
was conducted and
found that they were in
possession of excess
lands, and the claim
raised by the petitioners
on the basis of the
excess land were also
considered by the
District Collector.
3. All India
Manufacturers
... vs State Of
Karnataka
(2005 (3)
KarLJ 521)
Primary grievance is that land in excess of
what was required for the execution of the
Project has been acquired by the State
Government thereby depriving the
agriculturists of their lands and that it
allowed itself to be misrepresented in
allotting the Project which was originally
sanctioned in favour of a Consortium of
American Companies to a new company
The writ petitioners and
the State Government
have pleaded that excess
land had been acquired
on account of fraud and
misrepresentation
practiced by Nandi. The
plea of fraud and
