Remanded

State of Kerala v. P.Sadasivan

Kerala HC8 Feb 2011LA.App./417/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree in a Land Acquisition Appeal. The matter was remanded to the Additional Sub Court for a fresh decision based on further evidence and previously stated observations. The government appellant was directed to serve relevant judgments.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded to Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram; permission given to adduce further evidence.

State of Kerala Vs P.Sadasivan — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 417 of 2010(D) -------------------------LAR.43/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶6

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT 1 IN LAR

¶7

¶8

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS 1-2 & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR

¶11

¶12

D.SADASIVAN ASARI, TC 81/2297, ASHA MANDIRAM, KORALAMKUZHI, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

N.ASHA DEVI, TC 81/2297, ASHA MANDIRAM, KORALAMKUZHI, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R3 SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED FOR R3

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

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

¶18

LAA. No. 417 of 2010

¶19

Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶22

Invoking Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules it is declared that R1 has been duly served. The LAA need not be treated as defective.

¶23

The Government is in appeal. The appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Attipra Village for the purpose of Technology Park at Kazhakoottam in Thiruvanamthapuram District. The acquisition was pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 17-12-2003. We notice the judgment of this Court in LAA. 1332 of 2008 and connected matters. For the reasons stated in that judgment the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand LAR. No. 43 of 2008 to the Second

¶24

Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned

¶25

-2-

¶26

Sub Judge is directed to permit both sides to adduce further evidence if they are desirous of. The learned Judge will pass revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which comes to be adduced by the parties further. While taking fresh decision the learned Judge will have due regard to the observations of this Court in its judgment dated 8-4-2009 in LAA. No. 1332 of 2008 and connected cases. Either the Government or the requisitioning authority will make available the learned Judge a copy of the above judgment.

¶27

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶28

(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶29

ksv/-

State of Kerala v. P.Sadasivan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. P.Sadasivan

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

Fathima Vs P.v.Paulose

Rajan Babu Vs Viswanatha Pillai

Panayan Rajan Vs Hassan Kurikkalakath Shahin

Scientific&Industrial Research Director Vs a.R.Padmini Bai

St.Mary'S Forine Church Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Bhasura Devi