Allowed

Vasudevan Namboodiri v. the Land Acquisition Officer

Kerala HC12 Jun 2014LA.App./710/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Land Acquisition Appeal regarding a Reference under Section 31(2), the court held that the lower court erred in passing judgment based on alleged oral assertions without a written undertaking. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. Court fees were ordered refunded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded to court below for fresh disposal after hearing parties; court fees refunded.

Vasudevan Namboodiri Vs the Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/22ND JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

LA.App..No. 710 of 2013 ()

¶6

LAR 3/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

APPELLANT/ A CLAIMANT:

¶8

VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, NADUVATH MANA, CHALAKUDY PO, PIN 680307, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND B CLAIMANT:

¶11

1 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CIVL LINES, AYYANTHOLE 680 101, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR -DO- -DO-

¶13

RAJEEV, S/O.KUMBALAPARAMBIL SANKARANARAYANAN WEST CHALAKUDY PO 680 307. THRISSUR DISTRICT REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY VILASINI W/O.KUMBALAPARAMBIL SANKARANARAYANAN, CHALAKUDY PO 680 307, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. G. P. SRI. A.J. JOSE AEDAIODI R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

L.A.A. No. 710 of 2013

¶18

............................................................... Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2014

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The 'A' claimant in L.A.R.No.3/02 of the Subordinate

¶21

Judge's Court, Irinjalakkuda, in respect of a Reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, has come up in appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the said court.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. K.G.Balasubramanian, the learned Government Pleader for

¶23

respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.G. Sreekumar(Chelur) for the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

L.A.A. 710 of 2013

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed

¶27

out that the court below has proceeded with an assumption that the parties had arrived at terms and had agreed to pass a judgment as the one passed by the court below. It has been pointed out that in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment the court below has recorded,

¶28

“But during argument both sides have conceded that as this amount is entitled by them they have reached to a consensus by which both of them submitted that from the 2.823 cents the two cents to be included in the acquired property of A claimant and .823 cents to be included in the property of B claimant. In fact for doing such an adjustment there is no oral or documentary evidence.”

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed

¶30

out that the learned counsel for the appellant had never made such an oral assertion or undertaking before the court below. It is evident that no written undertaking was obtained by the court below from both the counsel for the claimants.

¶31

L.A.A. 710 of 2013

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

In such a case, especially when the matter involves huge amount of money, the court below ought not to have proceeded with on the basis of mere oral assertions allegedly made, without obtaining an undertaking in black and white. It seems that the court below has committed a grave error in passing such a judgment merely basing on the so called oral assertions of any other parties, especially when the court below could find that there was no oral or documentary evidence before the court below for such an adjustment. Matters being so, the impugned judgment has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶34

In the result, this Land Acquisition Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the court below on 11.08.2014.

¶35

L.A.A. 710 of 2013

¶36

-: 4 :-

¶37

Being an open remand, the entire court fee paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, under Section

¶38

67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Evaluation Act.

¶39

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶40

ul/-

¶41

[True copy]

¶42

P.S. to Judge

Vasudevan Namboodiri v. the Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudevan Namboodiri v. the Land Acquisition Officer

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

M/S.Glassco Vs the Regional Director, Esi Corporation

Nabeesa Vs K.Jayakumar

P.G.Shibu Vs Kurian Jose

Iranhivalappil Paru Vs Padinhareyil Gopalan

Muraleedharan Vs T.Madhu

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Biju A.P.