The Kerala High Court quashed an order rejecting a re-determination application. It held that an Award passed after a court remit is valid for Section 28A claims and directed the respondent to process the application.
Ext.P4 order is quashed; respondent directed to pass orders under Section 28A dealing with the application.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2012/7TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 208 of 2011 (A)
PETITIONER(S):
P.V. DAMODARA PODUVAL,
S/O. LATE RAMAN NAIR, POOLUKUNNATHU, VADAKKE VEETIL KANKOLE POST - 670 337, KANKOLE VILLAGE, PAYYANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR
SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ABDUL SHUKOOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2805-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).208/11
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
/true copy/
P.A. To Judge
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
........................................ W.P.(C).208/2011
.............................................. Dated this the 28th day of May, 2012
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent rejecting an application made under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act'). It is seen that relying on the Award in LAR.6/99, petitioner sought re-determination of the compensation by making an application. However, that was rejected by the first respondent on the basis that this is a revised Award passed pursuant to the directions of this Court. Therefore, according to the first respondent, the Award relied on, is only a revised Award and not an Award as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act.
KLT, 623), where it was held that an Award passed by the Reference Court following an appellate order
W.P.(C).208/11
2
of remit is an Award sufficient to sustain an application under Section 28A(1). If that be so, the view taken by the first respondent as reflected in Ext.P4, is opposed to the principle laid down in the judgment and for that reason, the order deserves to be interfered with.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mrcs
/true copy/ PA To Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an Award passed by a Reference Court following an appellate order of remit is sufficient to sustain an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Annamma Thomas v. State of KeralaRelied on¶29
Annamma Thomas v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT, 623)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.V. DAM ODARA PODUVAL
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
