Allowed

Balachandran Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2011LA.App./107/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condooned a 660-day delay in filing a land acquisition appeal subject to conditions imposing costs and barring interest on enhanced compensation during the condoned period. The court also remanded six related appeals.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 660 days condoned subject to payment of costs and security on enhanced compensation. Six related appeals remanded with directions to refix market value.

Balachandran Narayanan Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 107 of 2011() ------------------------LAR.60/1990 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM ....................

¶2

APPELLANT(S): 8TH CLAIMANT

¶3

-------------------------BALACHANDRAN NARAYAN,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.NARAYAN, B 1/304,BEE JUMBO DARSAN,ANDHERI EAST,MUMBAI.

¶4

BY ADV. SRI.N.M.JAMES

¶5

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------

¶6

STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM.PIN 695001 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.T.HANKAPPAN SRI.M.DINESH,SC,KWA SRI.P.SURESH

¶7

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 839/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶9

L.A.A.Nos.413,1133,1134,1264,1304/2009 & 180, 834,/2010 & 107 of 2011

¶10

Dated this the 21^ST day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT

¶11

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶12

As directed by us, the learned senior Government

¶13

Pleaders Smt.T.T.Josephina, and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan have taken notice on behalf of the State.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions addressed by Sri.N.M.James, learned counsel for the appellants, we feel that the issue raised in these appeals is covered in favour of the claimants by a common judgment of this court dated 18/6/2010 in L.A.A. Nos.840 & 891 /2009. For the various reasons stated in that common judgment, the judgment and decree which are impugned in these appeals are liable to be interfered with. For these reasons, we set aside the judgment and decree impugned in these appeals and remand L.A.R. No.60/1990 to the Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam. In fact, by the common

¶15

judgment in L.A.A.Nos.840 & 891/2009, we have already set aside the above judgment to the extent the same pertains to the

¶16

L.A.A.No.413/2009 & others 2

¶17

appellants in those two cases. The present judgment means that the benefit of that common judgment will be extended to the present appellants also.

¶18

The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to refix the market value of the land acquired from these appellants as on 23/11/1987 the date on which the award notices were issued to the appellants. All the observations and conditions set out in the above common judgment will apply.

¶19

While the Reference Court drafts the decree on the basis of the judgment to be passed pursuant to this judgment, regard will be had to the conditions imposed by this court while condoning the delay. In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memoranda to the appellants. The Registry will refund only 80% of the court fee remitted on the respective appeal memoranda.

¶20

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶21

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶22

dpk

¶23

L.A.A.No.413/2009 & others 3

¶24

L.A.A.No.413/2009 & others

¶25

¶26

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶27

C.M.APPln. 214 of 2011 in L.A.A.No. 107 OF 2011

¶28

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2011

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶31

This application seeking condonation of delay of 660 days in the matter of filing the appeal is opposed very stiffly by the learned Government Pleader. However we feel that, on the consideration that causes should be allowed, as far as possible, to be adjudicated on merits rather than decided on technicalities, we are inclined to condone the delay imposing proper conditions. This application will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions;

¶32

i). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the

¶33

appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation by virtue of the appellate judgment or any revised judgment which may be

¶34

L.A.A.No.413/2009 & others 5

¶35

passed by the Reference court pursuant to remand order, which may be passed by this court, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the L.A.Act during the period of 650 days condoned by our order in C.M.Appln.No.125/2011 and 660 days condoned by the present order.

¶36

ii). The appellant/petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/as costs to the Government through the office of the Advocate General within 10 days from today and produce receipt.

¶37

iii). The appellant/ petitioner shall pay a further amount of Rs.1500/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit and produce receipt before this court.

¶38

Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal. Upon noticing receipts against payment of the above amounts, the Registry will send up the appeal for admission.

¶39

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶40

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶41

L.A.A.No.413/2009 & others

¶42

¶43

dpk

¶44

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶45

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶46

dpk

Balachandran Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balachandran Narayanan v. State 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

Chief Project Manager,Railway Electrific Vs Aji Kurien

Suresh Babu Vs Jose Alex

Sri.C.K.Bhaskaran Vs Smt.Mottemmal Seenath and Another

K.S.I.D.C Vs Muhammed Shaheer

K.S.I.D.C Vs Pari Nafeesa

M.M.Sulekha Beevi @ Mrs.Sulekha Babu Vs State of Kerala