The single judge set aside a laconic lower appellate order for not independently quantifying the due amount and interest. The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration applying principles of interest and appropriation.
The impugned order was set aside for de novo consideration. The lower court was directed to pass orders within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/13TH ASWINA 1934
CRP.No. 66 of 2011 ( )
LAR.120/1993 of II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T.
RESPONDENT(S):
MARIAMMA, D/O.KURIAN PANJIKKARAN, RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL VEEDU,VADAKKUMBHAGAMKARA,ANIKKATTU CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM, REP.BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VARKEY PANJIKKARAN RESIDING AT PANJIKKARAN HOUSE KAZHAKUTTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
C.R.P.No. 66 of 2011
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2012
O R D E R
The State of Kerala contends that a sum of
Rs.4,75,755/- has already been deposited in excess whereas the claimant contends that a sum of Rs.24,50,270/- is still due. The impugned order is laconic in as much as it merely quotes the amount stated by the accounts section. The court below has not independently applied its mind to quantify the correct amount due. I have no option but to set aside the impugned order for de novo consideration on this aspect.
C.R.P.No.66 of 2011
2
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Either parties are at liberty to file calculation statement indicating the exact amount due under the Land Acquisition Award.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. No
costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order failing to independently quantify the amount due and applicable interest is sustainable?
Whether the impugned order should be set aside for de novo consideration regarding the land acquisition award amount?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunder v. Union of IndiaReferred¶20
Sunder v. Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 211] · Who else cites this
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of IndiaReferred¶20
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457] · Who else cites this
State of Kerala
Mariamma
V. Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. Chitambaresh
Parties & counsel
