Dismissed

Inland Waterways Authority of India v. Christopher Cardoz

Kerala HC22 Mar 2012LA.App./158/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal by the Inland Waterways Authority of India. The court confirmed the impugned judgment and held that the grievance regarding the absence of interest in the decree should be rectified via a decree correction, dismissing the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without any order as to cost, with liberty granted to the appellant to seek a correction of the decree regarding interest on enhanced compensation.

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Christopher Cardoz — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/2ND CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

LA.App..No. 158 of 2012 (D)

¶6

LAR.NO.43/2002 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT

¶8

INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE AT PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, (NOW OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1/631/A, KANADIKADU AREA, MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI

¶10

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND FIRST RESPONDENT:

¶11

1. CHRISTOPHER CARDOZ,

¶12

CHENNAZHATHU PUTHENVEEDU, KULANGARA BHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 582.

¶13

2. CATHRINE RODRIGOSE CHENNAZHATHU PUTHENVEEDU, KULANGARA BHAGOM, CHAVARA,KOLLAM-691 582.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶15

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

LAA No.158 of 2012 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pius C.Kuriakose, J

¶22

This is an appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority, the Inland Waterways Authority of India. The challenge is mainly against the land value re-fixed by the reference court. What we find from the judgment in LAA No.1287 of 2009 is that the said issue is already decided against the appellant. We confirm the impugned judgment and dismiss this appeal. However, we make it clear that in case the claimant prefers any appeal, it is open to the appellant to raise the grounds raised in this appeal against that appeal.

¶23

The appellant has another grievance. According to the appellant, the learned subordinate judge, under the impugned judgment, has stated that during a particular

¶24

LAA No.158 of 2012 2

¶25

period, the enhanced compensation will not carry interest since the appellant did not prosecute the case before the reference court during that period. The grievance is that this direction in the judgment does not find a place in the decree. We are of the view that the appellant should seek a correction of the decree. Giving to the appellant that liberty, we dismiss this appeal, without any order as to cost.

¶26

sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶27

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶28

css/ true copy

¶29

P.S.TO JUDGE

Inland Waterways Authority of India v. Christopher Cardoz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inland Waterways Authority of India v. Christopher Cardoz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Special Tahsildar Vs Rajeswari Amma

K.P.Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Kochubava Vs Anirudhan

K.K.Paulose Vs the District Collector,Muvattupuzha

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

M.N.Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala