Remanded

State of Kerala v. Sarojini

Kerala HC6 Mar 2012LA.App./1484/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the land acquisition award because the Requisitioning Authority was not a party to the reference. The matter was remanded to the Subordinate Judge to implead the Authority, notice be issued, and a revised award passed addressing the time-bar issue.

What did the court decide?

Judgment set aside and LAR remanded to Additional Sub Court to implead FACT Ltd and pass revised award within four months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/16TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶7

LA.App..No. 1484 of 2003 (A)

¶8

LAR.504/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA

¶11

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS:

¶13

SAROJINI, W/O MADHAVAN, KANJIRAKKATTU, MANJUMMAL

¶14

BABU, S/O MADHAVAN, -DO -DO-

¶15

BABY, S/O MADHAVAN, -DO- -DO-

¶16

REGHU, S/O MADHAVAN -DO- -DO-

¶17

BASI, S/O MADHAVAN -DO- -DO-

¶18

R,R1 TO 4 BY SRI.T.R.ASWAS R,R1 TO R4 BY SRI.ANIL KUMAR SREEDHARAN

¶19

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

¶21

L. A. A No.1484 of 2003

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2012

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶25

The Government impugns in this appeal an award

¶26

under Section 28A(3) passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, North Paravur. It is mainly on two grounds that the award which is in favour of the claimants is impugned. The first ground is that the application under Section 28A was time barred. The second ground is that the Requisitioning Authority FACT was not made a party. It is pertinent to note that the Requisitioning Authority M/s FACT Ltd. were not made parties to the Reference Court by the learned Subordinate Judge. We keep in mind the principles laid down by this Court Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala

¶27

(1995(2) KLT, 683) and find that the impugned award is liable

¶28

L. A. A No.1484 of 2003 -2-

¶29

to be set aside for that reason. As LAR has to go back to the Reference Court we direct the Reference Court to reconsider the question whether the application filed by the claimant under Section 28A was filed on time. Result of the above discussion therefore is as follows:-

¶30

The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. LAR.504/98 is remanded to the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. The learned Subordinate Judge will implead the FACT as additional party in the reference case and issue notice to them. The opportunity will be given to all parties including the newly impleaded Requisitioning Authority to adduce evidence and learned Subordinate Judge will pass revised award in which the learned Judge will address the issue whether 28A application was time barred. Needful in compliance with these directions shall be done by the learned Subordinate Judge within four months of receiving a

¶31

L. A. A No.1484 of 2003 -3copy of this judgment.

¶32

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶33

Sd/A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶34

kns/-

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE

State of Kerala v. Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Sarojini

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

Kariyal Pushpa Sudheendran Vs the Spl.Tahasildar L.a.,National Highway

T.T.Chacko Vs Bineesh Kumar

Kalesh Kumar Vs George K. Varkey

State of Kerala Vs Ezhava Samajam

Ezhava Samajam Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar.P.T. Vs State of Kerala