Remanded

Mandothumkandy Gopalan v. Govt. of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2008LA.App./396/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the trial court erred in denying appellants compensation due to alleged lack of absolute title and failure to determine fair rent under the Land Reforms Act. The appeal was allowed, the lower decree set aside, and the case remanded for fresh disposal after evidence admission.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; decree of trial court set aside; case remanded for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.

Mandothumkandy Gopalan Vs Govt. of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

LA.App..No. 396 of 2005(D)

¶6

-------------------------LAR.212/2002 of SUB COURT, THALASSERY ....................

¶7

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 3, 5 TO 17 AND 2 TO 22:

¶8

-----------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. MANDOTHUMKANDY GOPALAN, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶10

2. ROHINI, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶11

3. NANI, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶12

4. CHANDRAN, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶13

5. PREMAN, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶14

6. JAYAN, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶15

7. PAVITHRAN, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶16

8. RETHI, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶17

9. RAMESHAN, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶18

10. SUNIL, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶19

11. SHAJI, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶20

L.A.A.No.396/2005 2

¶21

12. YESHODA, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶22

13. REMA, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶23

14. LATHA, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶24

15. REETHA, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶25

16. SANTHOSH, S/O.VELLAMVALLI GOPALAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD P.O.

¶26

17. RAJI, W/O.LATE MANDOTHUMKANDY RAJAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, VAYALALOM DESOM.

¶27

18. RAJANI, D/O.LATE MANDOTHUMKANDY RAJAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, VAYALALOM DESOM.

¶28

19. SHAJITHA, D/O.LATE MANDOTHUMKANDY RAJAN, MANDOTHUMKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, VAYALALOM DESOM.

¶29

( APPELLANTS 2 TO 9 REP: BY POWER OF ATTORNERY HOLDER OF 1ST APPELLANT)

¶30

BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN

¶31

SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶32

RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS 18 AND 19:

¶33

-----------------------------------------------

¶34

1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR (PO) KANNUR.

¶35

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, (PO) KANNUR, KANNUR.

¶36

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI

¶37

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J

¶39

======================= L.A.A.No.396 of 2005

¶40

==========================

¶41

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2008

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Claimants 1 to 3, 5 to 17 and supplemental claimants 20 to 22 are the appellants. Certain properties in the possession of Late Smt. Kalliani were acquired for a public purpose. Her legal heirs are stated to be claimants 1 to 3, 5 to 17 and 20 to 22 who are the appellants before this Court. Appellants claim compensation on the strength of Ext.A1 document. Since the Land Acquisition Officer was not satisfied with the title of the appellants, the matter was referred to the Sub court for determining the land value. Before the court below the appellants and respondents appeared. The learned Sub Judge took a view that the appellants have not obtained the absolute title of the land owner and as such the compensation is to be paid to the land owner, second respondent in the appeal. The court below directed to pay 1/8^th of the compensation amount to the second respondent. Challenging that part of the decree this appeal is filed.

¶44

L.A.A.No.396/2005

¶45

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the view taken by the trial court that there is no evidence to prove the rent is illegal. It is argued that Ext.A1 document itself shows the rent payable and as such the compensation amount ought to have been paid to the appellants alone except the 12 times rate of rent mentioned in the document. Ext.A1 is a document executed in the year 1959. The learned Sub Judge refused to act upon that documents for determination of fair rent in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 framed under Section 27 of the Land Reforms Act. The court below directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.3,982/- to the respondents. After hearing both sides I am of the view that one more opportunity can be afforded to the appellants to establish the actual rent payable at the relevant date. For that purpose the case has to go back.

¶47

In the result appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment passed by the trial court in L.A.R. 212/2002 are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to both sides

¶48

L.A.A.No.396/2005

¶49

¶50

to adduce evidence. Appellants shall appear before the trial court on 15.02.2008.

¶51

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶52

dvs

Mandothumkandy Gopalan v. Govt. of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandothumkandy Gopalan v. Govt. of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R.Valsan Vs Shri.a.P.M.Muhammed Haneesh & Others

K.Muthuramalingam Vs K.Balakuruppu

K.Shajith Kumar Vs P.Mohanan

M.D,Nesamony Transport Corpn Vs a.Rassalayyan

Vayakkara Yesoda Vs State of Kerala

K.O.Sabu Vs C.M.Mathew