Allowed

Vanaja Visalakshan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2012CRP/154/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a reference court cannot dismiss a land acquisition reference for default or absence of the claimant. It set aside the lower court's order dismissing a review application on technical grounds, holding the land acquisition reference deserves to be answered on merits with a fair opportunity to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.1875/2009 in L.A.R. No.22/2008 allowed; underlying case to be disposed on merits.

Vanaja Visalakshan Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/16TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 154 of 2012 ()

¶6

I.A.1875/2009 IN LAR.22/2008 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN L.A.R. NO.22/08 IN SUB JUDGE, KOCHI:

¶8

VANAJA VISALAKSHAN, W/O.VISALAKSHAN, VAZHATHARA HOUSE, AZEEKALKADAVU, PUTHUVYPE, COCHIN.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN LAR NO.22/08 IN SUB JUDGE, KOCHI:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY SPL. TAHSILDAR (LA),

¶13

ICTT, VALLARPADAM, ELOOR.

¶14

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

¶15

COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682 009.

¶16

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SMT.THUSHARA JAMES.

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶21

C.R.P No.154 of 2012

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2012

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

It is trite law that a reference court cannot dismiss a land acquisition reference for default. The reference court has undoubtedly to pass an award even if the claimant is absent.

¶25

(See. Kunjayyan & Others vs. State of Kerala & another (2012 (1) KLJ 774 ). The reference court in instant case held that the claimant is not entitled for enhanced compensation merely because he was absent. There was no discussion about the merits of the claim made by the claimant .

¶26

The subsequent application put in by the claimant for review was dismissed . It was so done on the premise that there is no error of law apparent on the face of record. I feel that the court below has adopted a hyper technical view. The land acquisition reference deserves to be answered on merits. The claimant is certainly entitled to a just compensation for the property lost.

¶27

I set aside the impugned order and allow I.A No.1875/2009 in L.A.R No.22/2008 on the file of the Court of the

¶28

C.R.P No.154 of 2012 2

¶29

Subordinate Judge of Kochi. The court below shall dispose of L.A.R No.22/2008 on merits after affording to the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence. The parties shall appear in the court below on 3-10-2012

¶30

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶31

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶32

smm

¶33

C.R.P No.154 of 2012 3

Vanaja Visalakshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanaja Visalakshan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.E.B Vs Karuvrakkal Kumaran Master

P.G.Shaji Vs v.v.Muraleedharan

Vimala Vs Sukumaran

Abdul Azeez Vs Secretary, Thennala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Jameela Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Bindu @ Janaki Nirmala Vs Janaki Ambika