Remanded

Shyamala v. Special Tahsildar (La) (Oecf), Kozhikkode

Kerala HC22 Nov 2013LA.App./156/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a reference court's rejection of a land claim due to non-appearance. The High Court restrained the dismissal and remanded the matter to the Sub Court for fresh disposal, granting the appellants an opportunity to prove their case.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of Sub Court set aside; L.A.R. No. 174/2002 remanded for fresh disposal after evidence.

Shyamala Vs Special Tahsildar (La) (Oecf), Kozhikkode — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶6

LA.App..No. 156 of 2013 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.8.2008 IN LAR.NO. 174/2002 OF PRL. SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT / LR'S OF CLAIMANT :

¶9

1. SHYAMALA

¶10

W/O. PONNILAM VAYALIL CHOYIKUTTY @ SREENIVASAN (DIED) PONNILAM VAYALIL (HOUSE), VENGERI AMSOM, DESOM

¶11

KOZHIKKODE TALUK.

¶12

2. SREENISH

¶13

S/O.PONNILAM VAYALIL CHOYIKUTTY @ SREENIVASAN (DIED)

¶14

PONNILAM VAYALIL (HOUSE), VENGERI AMSOM, DESOM

¶15

KOZHIKKODE TALUK.

¶16

3. BINEESH

¶17

S/O.PONNILAM VAYALIL CHOYIKUTTY @ SREENIVASAN (DIED)

¶18

PONNILAM VAYALIL (HOUSE) VENGERI AMSOM, DESOM

¶19

KOZHIKKODE TALUK.

¶20

4. SREEBISH

¶21

S/O.PONNILAM VAYALIL CHOYIKUTTY @ SREENIVASAN (DIED) PONNILAM VAYALIL (HOUSE), VENGERI AMSOM, DESOM KOZHIKKODE TALUK.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.

¶23

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS :

¶24

1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) (OECF), KOZHIKKODE KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673016.

¶25

2. THE PROJECT OFFICER (OECF),

¶26

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE-673016.

¶27

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. P.A. RAZIYA

¶28

R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶29

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

...2/-

¶32

LA.App..No. 156 of 2013 ()

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES :

¶35

ANNEXURE A	: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAR NO. 49/2002 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOZHIKKODE DATED 11.6.2012.
ANNEXURE B	COPY OF THE DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶36

ANNEXURE C	COPY OF THE OUT-PATIENT CARD ISSUED FROM MEDICAL
	COLLEGE HOSPITAL TO SREENIVASAN.

¶37

ANNEXURE D COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED FROM VALIYERI AYURVEDA PHARMACY & CLINIC, KOZHIKODE.

¶38

ANNEXURE E COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED FROM SREE SASTHA MARMA CHIKITSA KENDRAM.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶44

==================

¶45

L.A.A.No. 156 of 2013

¶46

==================

¶47

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2013 J U D G M E N T

¶48

S.Siri Jagan, J.:

¶49

The legal representatives of deceased claimant in L.A.R.No. 174/2002 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode, are the appellants herein. The properties belonging to Sreenivasan, the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants, were acquired by the State for the purpose of the Kerala Water Authority as per a notification dated 10.6.1998 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the land acquisition officer, the claimant sought reference and the above L.A.R. came to be referred accordingly. But when the case was listed for evidence, neither the claimant nor his counsel was present. Therefore, on the ground that no evidence had been adduced to prove the value of the land, the reference court rejected the claim of the claimant. The appellants are challenging the judgment of the reference court.

¶50

We have heard the parties.

¶51

L.A.A.156/13 - : 2 :-

¶52

Although there was some fault on the part of the claimant in adducing evidence, taking a lenient view, we are inclined to grant the appellants another opportunity to prove their case by adducing evidence. For that purpose, the judgment of the Sub Court is set aside and L.A.R.No.174/2002 is remanded to the Sub Court, Kozhikode, for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence to prove their respective cases. It would be open to the appellants to get themselves impleaded in the L.A.R. as legal heirs of the deceased claimant. The parties shall appear before the reference court on 18.12.2013 for further proceedings.

¶53

The appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

sdk+

Sd/K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶58

///True copy///

¶59

P.A. to Judge

¶60

L.A.A.156/13 - : 3 :-

Shyamala v. Special Tahsildar (La) (Oecf), Kozhikkode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamala v. Special Tahsildar (La) (Oecf), Kozhikkode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.F.Francis Vs B.Raman Pillai and Another

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs v.K.Karunan

Shijith @ Boban Vs Hassankutty

State of Kerala Vs Thankachan

State of Kerala Vs K.Sundaresan

State of Kerala Vs Muhammed Hassan