Dismissed

State v. Devaki Amma

Kerala HC3 Mar 2011LA.App./663/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Land Acquisition appeal filed by the State. The court condoned the procedural defect regarding the third respondent's legal heirs and held the reliance on Ext.A1 justifiable since the Government did not appeal it, dismissing the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Land Acquisition Appeal (L.A.A. No. 663 of 2002) is dismissed without any order as to costs.

State Vs Devaki Amma — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

LA.App..No. 663 of 2002(A) -----------------------------LAR.6/1996 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA ....................

¶5

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT

¶6

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

¶7

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),NATIONAL HIGHWAY,CHERTHALA

¶8

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS

¶10

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

¶11

1. DEVAKI AMMA,GOURIMANDIRAM, KADAKKARAPPALLY.

¶12

2. KRISHNA PRASAD,GOURIMANDIRAM, KADAKKARAPPALLY.

¶13

*** 3. SATHEESH KUMAR,GOURIMANDIRAM, KADAKKARAPPALLY.(DEAD)**

¶14

4. PADMAVATHI AMMA,GOURIMANDIRAM, KADAKKARAPPALLY.

¶15

5. RENGINI,GOURIMANDIRAM,KADAKKARAPPALLY

¶16

ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR R2

¶17

*IT IS RECORDED THAT 3RD RESPONDENT DIED ON 29.9.03 AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 ARE HIS LEGAL HEIRS AS PER ORDER DATED 3.3.11.

¶18

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

¶19

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 663 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2011.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶22

The appeal has come up in the defect list for the reason legal representatives of 3^rd respondent are not brought on record. But we notice a memo filed by the Government Pleader to the effect that the other respondents in the party array are the legal representatives of deceased R2. Hence, it is recorded that the other respondents are the legal representatives of the third respondent. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We find that it is relying upon Ext.A1 that the Court below passed the impugned judgment. It is fairly conceded by the senior Government Pleader that Ext.A1 has attained finality in the sense that the Government did not prefer any

¶23

L.A.A. NO. 663 OF 2002

¶24

-:2:-

¶25

appeal against Ext.A1. Going through the impugned judgment we find the reliance placed on Ext.A1 was justifiable. Under the circumstances the appeal will stand dismissed however without any order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE.

¶27

Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE.

ul/-

[ True copy ]

P.S. to Judge.

L.A.A. NO. 663 OF 2002

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

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

¶34

= = = = = = = = = =

¶35

L.A.A. No. 663 OF 2002

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

3^rd March, 2011.

State v. Devaki Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Devaki Amma

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

Sarojini Ramadevi Vs State of Kerala

V.Krishnan Asari Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Margret Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Soj, S/O.Kamalolbhavan Vs State of Kerala

General Manager Vs K.K. Abdul Majeed

K.v.Gouri Vs the Special Tahsildar