Dismissed

Muhammed v. K. Sankarankutty

Kerala HC5 Sept 2012CRP(LR)/353/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Kerala High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition. The Court held that the Land Reforms Appellate Authority correctly remanded the case to the Land Tribunal as the landlord's objection was unaddressed. Furthermore, since the Government was not impleaded as a necessary party under Section 103(1A), the Court refused interference.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to place his case before the Land Tribunal after impleading all necessary parties.

Muhammed Vs K. Sankarankutty — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/14TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRP(LR).No. 353 of 2012 ()

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/06/2012 IN AA.32/2006 of LAND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR),THRISSUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

MUHAMMED, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PALENGATT PARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNDALASSERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:

¶11

K. SANKARANKUTTY, S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, CHAKKUNGAL, KIZHAKKEKKARA, KUNDALASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 641.

¶12

THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Kss

¶14

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶15

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶16

C.R.P.(L.R) No.353 of 2012

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The appellate authority has after all remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal, Palakkad to decide the entitlement of the petitioner to get a certificate of purchase. How far the observations in O.S No.112/2000 to which the assignor of the petitioner was a party would affect the entitlement is a matter to be considered by the Land Tribunal. The appellate authority has remitted the matter since the objection filed by the landlord has not been adverted to at all by the Land Tribunal. The appellate authority has not decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law as to warrant interference under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶20

Moreover the Government of Kerala is a necessary party to the Civil Revision Petition under Section 103(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The petitioner has not impleaded the Government as a party as mandated by the statutory provisions. This is an added reason which dissuades me from interfering

¶21

C.R.P.(L.R) No.353 of 2012 2

¶22

with the order of remand passed by the appellate authority (Land Reforms) . The petitioner is at liberty to place his case before the Land Tribunal which would advert to the contentions of either parties.

¶23

The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.

¶24

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶25

smm

¶26

C.R.P.(L.R) No.353 of 2012 3

Muhammed v. K. Sankarankutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed v. K. Sankarankutty

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

Muhammed Vs Pattarumadathil Bappu

Jaseentha Vs Valsa and Others

Kurian P.Koshy Vs M.Chandran

Viswambharan Vaidyar Vs the Sreenarayana Trust

A.Parameswaran Vs Shyamala & Others

Vidyadharan Anilkumar Vs Vamakshy