Allowed

E.P.Kuriakose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2011LA.App./780/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the land acquisition appeal by remanding the matter to the Sub Court. It directed that the vendor, from whom the claimant purchased the Scheduled Tribe land, be impleaded and heard to determine the validity of the assignment before deciding the award claim.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed to the extent of remanding the Land Acquisition Reference to the Sub Court for deciding the validity of the assignment after impleading and hearing the vendor.

E.P.Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

LA.App..No. 780 of 2005() ------------------------LAR.8/2000 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT:

¶7

¶8

E.P. KURIAKOSE, S/O. PAILY, ELAVAMKUDI HOUSE, VELLADA, KULATHUVAYAL P.O., AMBALAVAYAL.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.RAJESH S KUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, KALPETTA.

¶13

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NO.1 K.R.P. & B.S.I.P., KALPETTA.

¶14

V.KUNHAN, S/O. ELIKKAN, AGED 60YEARS, VELLADA HOUSE, JAI HIND COLONY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶15

V.KESAVAN, S/O. ELIKKAN, AGED 60YEARS, VELLADA HOUSE, JAI HIND COLONY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶16

MEENA D/O. ANANTHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, VELLADA HOUSE, JAI HIND COLONY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶17

(ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 26/6/2006 IN I.A. NO.1583/2006)

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1,2 BY ADV.SRI.G.G.MANOJ FOR R3 TO R5

¶19

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

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

¶21

L.A.A.No. 780 OF 2005

¶22

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Balakrishnan, J.

¶25

The claimant in LAR No.8/2000 on the files of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery is in appeal. An amount of Rs.69,635/being the award amount was deposited in the Court on the ground that the land under acquisition was one transferred by persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and is covered by K.S.T. Act 1975. The claimant contended that the acquired property exclusively belongs to him as per registered sale deed No.1684/80 dated 28/4/80 of S.R.O. Sulthanbathery. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the land under acquisition in this case belonged to the scheduled Tribe community and since there was total prohibition of assignment, the claimant could not get title to the property so as to claim the award amount.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

¶27

the Government by letter dated 3/11/2009 has directed that if the extent of land does not exceed 2 hectares, such sale deed will not be invalid. A copy of that letter has been made available

¶28

LAA.No.780/2005

¶29

¶30

before us It is an unauthenticated copy. The vendor from whom the property was stated to have been purchased by the claimant is not made a party to the proceedings. Validity or otherwise of the assignment has to be decided only after giving notice to and hearing the vendor to the assignment deed. Hence, we are of the concerned view that the matter has to be remanded to the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery for reconsidering the issue afresh.

¶31

The appeal is allowed to the extent of remanding the LAR No.8/2000 to the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery. The claimant will appear before that court on 25/5/2011. The Registry will refund 75% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memorandum to the claimant/appellant. The court below will issue notice to the person/persons from whom the claimant purchased the property and should find whether the assignment is valid and decide the matter at the earliest.

¶32

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶33

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶34

dpk

E.P.Kuriakose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.P.Kuriakose 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

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

The General Manager, Ksidc, Tvm. Vs Maroli Mathu

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

The Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Sabeth

Thomas Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sarasamma Santhakumari Amma Vs State of Kerala