Remanded

The General Manager, Ksidc, Tvm. v. Maroli Mathu

Kerala HC31 Mar 2011LA.App./436/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree. The Land Acquisition Reference No. 201/05 was remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh decision after both sides were afforded an opportunity to adduce further evidence and a revised award was to be passed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned judgment and decree; remanded L.A.R.201/05 to the Reference Court for a fresh decision.

The General Manager, Ksidc, Tvm. Vs Maroli Mathu — Land Acquisition | 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 THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

LA.App..No. 436 of 2009(D) ------------------------------LAR.201/2005 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY ....................

¶5

APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR

¶6

¶7

THE GENERAL MANAGER, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:

¶10

¶11

MAROLI MATHU VAYALIL HOUSE, P.O.MOORIYAD.

¶12

GOVT.OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶13

SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA, GOVT. PLEADER

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

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

¶16

L. A. A. No.436 of 2009

¶17

Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2011

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶20

There is no appearance for the respondent who have

¶21

already been served with notice of the appeal preferred by the Requisitioning Authority. Sri.Sheejo Chacko, the learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.98/09 and connected cases, a copy of the judgment is also placed before us.

¶22

Having gone through the above judgment, we feel that the impugned judgment warrants interference. For the reasons stated in that judgment, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand L.A.R.201/05 to the Reference Court for fresh decision. The Reference Court will

¶23

afford opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence

¶24

L. A. A. No.436 of 2009 -2-

¶25

and will pass revised award on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence which comes to be on record. The Requisitioning Authority will place a copy of the common judgment in L.A.A.98/09 series before the Reference Court so as to enable the Reference Court to appreciate the reasons which weighed with this Court in that case. Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memo to the counsel for the appellant.

¶26

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶27

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶28

kns/-

The General Manager, Ksidc, Tvm. v. Maroli Mathu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager, Ksidc, Tvm. v. Maroli Mathu

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

Elizabeth Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Yudathadevoose @ Sajan Vs State of Kerala and Another

State of Kerala Vs S.Anil Kumar

K.C.George Vs the Spl.Tahsildar (L.a) Railways, Ekm

Maroli Vijayan and Another Vs Government of Kerala,Rep.by Dt.Collector

The Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Sabeth