Allowed

Chodath Shaikoya v. the Land Acquisition Collector

Kerala HC8 Feb 2013OP(C)/51/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order regarding compensation apportionment in a land acquisition reference, directing that the amount be transferred to a fixed deposit pending the outcome of related appeals determining the nature of the property.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P2 order; direct apportionment based on pending appeals; transfer amount to Syndicate Bank for fixed deposit.

Chodath Shaikoya Vs the Land Acquisition Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/19TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 51 of 2012 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR.41/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

CHODATH SHAIKOYA AGED 49 YEARS S/O. CHODOTH PATHIMABI, KEELAPURA HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND LAKSHADWEEP.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, COLLECTORATE KAVARATHI - 610 001

¶12

CHODATH CHERUKULATH MAMU C.K. HOUSE, NEAR SHAIK MASJID, KANNUR - 670 002.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C).No. 51 of 2012 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING I.A 99/2011 IN L.A.R 41/2010 DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND

¶19

EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2011 IN I.A 99/2011 IN L.A.R 41/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶21

True Copy

¶22

P.A to Judge

¶23

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶24

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

¶25

O.P(C).No.51 of 2012

¶26

============================ Dated this the 08^th day of February, 2013

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Second respondent is served but there is no response.

¶29

A small extent of around 410 sq.meters of land was

¶30

acquired by the first respondent for which compensation was also awarded. Since there was dispute between the parties regarding nature of the property, that dispute was referred to the District Court, Lakshadweep under Sec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act for a decision as to the manner of apportionment of compensation.

¶31

Before the learned District Judge, dispute arose whether the property acquired is Friday (tarwad) or Thursday (self acquired) property or not. Learned District Judge has taken the view that since there was a maintenance arrangement between the thavazhies, the allottees under the maintenance arrangement are entitled to get compensation. Accordingly, learned District Judge passed Ext.P2, order which is under challenge in this original petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that maintenance arrangement is not a partition by itself, it is only an arrangement between members of the different thavazhies for maintenance, right of the allottees under that arrangement is only to

¶33

O.P(C).No.51 of 2012

¶34

¶35

take income from the properties and that it has nothing to do with an outright partition of the properties. It is also contended that the dispute whether properties including the acquired property is Friday or Thursday properties is pending decsion in this Court in A.S.Nos.281 of 1998, 488 of 1998 and R.F.A.No.394 of 2006. Learned counsel submits that in view of pendancy of those appeals, petitioner had preferred an application before learned District Judge for stay of proceeding in L.A.R.No.41 of 2010 under Sec.10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") but that application was dismissed for the reason that Sec.10 of the Code has no application since one of proceeding sought to be stayed is a land acquisition reference and not a suit.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for first respondent as well.

¶37

The issue before me is whether property acquired is Friday or Thursday properties. Necessarily, apportionment and disbursal of the amount would depend on a finding on that judgment. It is not necessary for me to go into that issue since the said issue is pending decision in A.S.Nos.281 of 1998, 488 of 1998 and R.F.A.No.394 of 2006.

¶38

Assuming that Sec.10 of the Code is not applicable since the proceeding sought to be stayed is not a suit but a land

¶39

O.P(C).No.51 of 2012

¶40

¶41

acquisition reference, it was open to the petitioners to challenge the order dismissing the application under Sec.10 of the Code. This Court, either under Sec.151 of the Code or in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution could have interfered in the matter but, unfortunately that was not done.

¶42

As it stands, apportionment of the amount in deposit should depend on the decision as to the nature of property which is pending decision in the appeals aforesaid. In that view of the matter, the appropriate course is to set aside Ext.P2, order and direct that apportionment and disbursement of compensation in deposit with the first respondent will be in accordance with the decision of this Court in A.S.Nos.281 of 1998, 488 of 1998 and R.F.A.No.394 of 2006.

¶43

Now the amount is in deposit in the District Court, Lakshadweep. It is not acquiring interest. Thereby, the party entitled to get the amount is being put to loss. In the light of the view I have taken above, it is only appropriate that the said amount is transferred to the Syndicate Bank, Kavaratti (as agreed by the learned counsel for petitioner and the first respondent) where it will remaine in fixed deposit in the name of the District Judge, Lakshadweep so that the amount will carry interest.

¶44

O.P(C).No.51 of 2012

¶45

¶46

This original petition is allowed as under:

¶47

(i) Ext.P2, order dated 16.11.2011 in L.A.R.No.41 of 2010 of the District Court, Lakshadweep is set aside.

¶48

(ii) It is directed that amount in deposit shall be apportioned and disbursed to the person/persons found entitled, based on the decision in A.S.Nos.281 of 1998, 488 of 1998 and R.F.A.No.394 of 2006 of this Court as to the nature of the property involved.

¶49

(iii) Learned District Judge, Lakshadweep is directed to transfer the amount to the Syndicate Bank, Kavaratti where it shall remain in fixed deposit in the name of learned District Judge for appropriate period, to be renewed thereafter if in the meantime above said appeals are not disposed of.

¶50

(iv) Learned District Judge, Kavaratti is directed to pass final order in L.A.R.No.41 of 2010 based on the decision in those appeals aforesaid.

¶51

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶52

Sbna

Chodath Shaikoya v. the Land Acquisition Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chodath Shaikoya v. the Land Acquisition Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankaran Nair Vs N.Chandrasekharan Nair

Vaheedabhanu Vs v.Ganesh

Raveendran Vs Swamy Bhoomananda Theertha

5EJANI and Others Vs Selvister and Another

State of Kerala Vs P.M.Raman Namboothiripad

Tomy Vs the Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board