The High Court dismissed the land acquisition appeal without examining merits, holding that the remedy for the alleged omission of statutory benefits lies before the Subordinate Judge via rectification or review.
The Land Acquisition Appeal was closed without examining the merits of the grounds relied upon by the appellant.
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 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933 LA.App..No. 208 of 2011 ( ) --------------------------LAR.202/2008 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
KARINCHIRE RETNAKARAN, P.A.HOLDER OF DECEASED S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN CHELAKODE POST, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.AUGUSTINE SRI.ANIL.D.KAITHAKKAL SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN SRI.K.K.SUSHEER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0103-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
LAA. No. 208 of 2011
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Having regard to the submissions made by Mr. K.M.Augustine, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr. C.R.Syamkumar, learned Government Pleader, we feel that the remedy of the appellant lies before the learned Subordinate Judge himself. The submission of Mr. Augustine was that the lower court has committed the mistake of deducting the statutory benefits which had been awarded to the appellant on the compensation awarded to him on the basis of the award under Section 28A passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. This is a patent mistake according to Mr. Augustine. If what Mr. Augustine submits is true, it is for the appellant to bring the above mistake to the notice of the learned Subordinate Judge in the form of an application under Section 152 or 153 of the Code of Civil
LAA. No. 208 of 2011
-2-
Procedure, if not, in the form of a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1. Leaving the appellant to such other remedies before the learned Subordinate Judge, we close this LAA without examining the merits of the grounds.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE)
ksv/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its power to allow the appeal or leave the matter to be corrected by the lower court.
Whether the deduction of statutory benefits constitutes a patent mistake warranting appellate interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
KARINCHIRE RETNAKARAN
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR
THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION)
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (L.A. GENERAL)
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
