Disposed

Varkala Municipality v. R.Dharmarajan

Kerala HC12 Jul 2010WP(C)/18924/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed revision petitioners to quash impugned orders rejecting a reference for enhanced compensation. This decision relied on a concurrent Division Bench order granting extension time for the petitioner to remit the stipulated debt amount before approaching the Reference Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting the reference were quashed with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Reference Court for remitting the balance amount.

Varkala Municipality Vs R.Dharmarajan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 18924 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------(LAR.NO.19/2004 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. R.DHARMARAJAN, SREEMOOLA NILAYAM, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA.

¶13

2. SATHYADEVAN, KALLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., AYIROOR.

¶14

3. SATHY, CHANTHAVILAKAM VEEDU, PERETTIL, VALIYAMBALAM, KAVALAYOOR.

¶15

4. SARASWATHY, W/O.SATHYADEVAN, KALLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., AYIROOR VILLAGE.

¶16

5. SHIBU, S/O.SATHYADEVAN, KALLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., AYIROOR VILLAGE.

¶17

6. SHERIN, KALLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., AYIROOR VILLAGE.

¶18

7. RADHA VASUDEVAN, W/O.LATE DHARMARAJAN, SREEMOOLANILAYAM, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA.

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.18924/2010-M:

¶20

8. ROY, S/O.RADHA VASUDEVAN, SREEMOOLANILAYAM, MUNDAYIL DESOM, VARKALA.

¶21

9. REEJA, D/O.RADHA VASUDEVAN, SREEMOOLANILAYAM, MUNDAYIL DESOM, VARKALA.

¶22

10. RAGI DHARMARAJAN, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DAYA, SREEMOOLANILAYAM, MUNDAYIL DESOM, VARKALA.

¶23

11. REENA DHARMARAJAN, SREEMOOLANILAYAM, MUNDAYIL DESOM, VARKALA.

¶24

12. UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEMOOLANILAYAM, MUNDAYIL DESOM, VARKALA.

¶25

13. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

R.1 TO R.6 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ .R, R.13 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 18925 OF 2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

W.P.(C). NO.18924/2010-M:

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/02/2008 IN L.A.R. NO. 19/04 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶32

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 23/12/2009 IN L.A.A. NO. 577/04 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶33

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 29/01/2010.

¶34

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 19/05/2010 IN L.A.R. NO. 19/2004.

¶35

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN L.A.R. NO. 11/04 DTD.08/01/2010.

¶36

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 23/01/2010 IN L.A.R. NO. 50/2004.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶42

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.18924/2010-M & 18925/2010-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2010

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The petitioner Municipality who is the

¶45

requisitioning authority is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sub Court, Attingal in L.A.R No.19/2004 produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.18924/2010 and L.A.R.No.12/2004 produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C). No.18925/2010.

¶46

Heard parties. The matter concerns the issue regarding the claim for enhanced compensation by the party respondents herein. The matter was once remanded by this Court in L.A.A. Nos.577/2009 & 1002/2009. As a condition for remand, the Appellant-State was directed to remit 30% of the decreed debt amount. The learned Sub Judge on finding that the amount covered by the 30% decreed debt has not been deposited, rejected the reference by the impugned orders which are under challenge in these writ petitions. While the writ petitions were pending, the petitioner had filed I.A.No. 2380/2010 in L.A.A.No.577/2009 and

¶47

I.A.No.2381/2010 in L.A.A.No.1002/2009 wherein the

¶48

W.P.(C). Nos.18924/2010 & 18925/2010

¶49

-:2:-

¶50

Division Bench passed an order dated 02/07/2010 granting one more month's time from the said date for remitting the balance amount. In that view of the matter, as the Division Bench has already granted extension of time, the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner will approach the Reference Court itself for remitting the balance amount. The learned Sub Judge will thereafter consider the matter and pass fresh orders.

¶51

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.

¶52

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶53

Varkala Municipality v. R.Dharmarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varkala Municipality v. R.Dharmarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sreekumar Vs Smt.J.Sreedevi Amma

Dr.Mathew.v & Another Vs Anila George

Keeneri Jayapalan Vs Secretary, Kankole Alappadamba Grama Pan

C.Jayasankar Vs the Kerala State Election Commission

Chandramai Vs Pramadom Grama Panchayat

E.K.Zakeer Shamnad and Another Vs the General Manager