Allowed

Vellanchola Sainaba v. District Collector

Kerala HC5 Sept 2016CRP/666/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging the closure of a land acquisition reference without adjudication. The High Court set aside the lower court's order for answering against claimants on no instruction and remitted the case for fresh disposal after permitting parties to file statements and prove their case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub Court for fresh disposal after giving parties an opportunity to file statements and prove their case with directions for expedited he

Vellanchola Sainaba Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 666 of 2014 ()

¶6

----------------------LAR 16/2012 of SUB COURT, MANJERI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/CLAIMANTS A TO G, I AND LEGAL HEIRS OF CLAIMANT H:

¶8

1. VELLANCHOLA SAINABA, W/O. IZZA HAJI, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MUHAMMADALI

¶10

S/O. IZZA HAJI, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. USMAN

¶12

S/O. IZZA HAJI, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O. IZZA HAJI,

¶14

KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5. ABDUL NASAR

¶16

S/O. IZZA HAJI, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

6. KHADEEJA, D/O. IZZA HAJI,

¶18

KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

7. AYISHA, D/O. IZZA HAJI,

¶20

KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶21

8. ABDU RAHIMAN

¶22

(WRONGLY SHOWN AS ABDU SALAM IN THE AWARD) S/O. IZZA HAJI, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶23

CRP.No. 666 of 2014 ()

¶24

9. USMAN, H/O. NOORJAHAN, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶25

10. NASILY, D/O.NOORJAHAN,

¶26

KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶27

11. NASEEF (MINOR)

¶28

S/O. USMAN, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN - FATHER 10TH REVISION PETITIONER USMAN.

¶29

12. NABEEL (MINOR)

¶30

S/O. USMAN, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN - FATHER 10TH REVISION PETITIONER USMAN.

¶31

13. NASRY (MINOR)D/O. USMAN, KALIPPADAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN - FATHER 10TH REVISION PETITIONER USMAN.

¶32

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶34

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶35

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶36

PWD ROADS, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121.

¶37

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN

¶38

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶41

C.R.P.No. 666 of 2014

¶42

....................................................... Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2016.

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

The above revision petition has been filed challenging the award in LAR.No.16/2012 of Sub Court, Manjeri closing the reference without answering the same.

¶45

It is alleged in the petition that an extent of 0.843 hectors of land in Resurvey No.45/24 of Perinthalmanna village was acquired for the purpose of Perinthalmanna – ManathumangalamKakkooth byepass-II. An award has been passed. Since the petitioners are not satisfied with the impugned award, they made an application for reference to the civil court for fixing the compensation, that was allowed and it has been referred to Sub Court, Manjeri where it was taken on file as LAR.No.16/2012. The case was posted on 5^th September, 2013 for evidence. On that day, the counsel for the revision petitioners reported no instruction and the court below had closed the reference without considering the contents of the claim made and the counter filed. The manner in which the case has been disposed of by the court below is illegal. Hence this revision petition.

¶46

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri. K.M. Sathyanatha Menon and Sri S. Gopinathan, senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶47

Considering the nature of disposal by the court below and

¶48

¶49

C.R.P.No. 666 of 2014

¶50

also the dispute centered around in the revision petition, this court felt that the revision can be disposed of today itself after hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned Government Pleader.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had a grievance that no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to conduct the case when their lawyer reported no instruction and an opportunity ought to have been given to engage another lawyer to conduct the case. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that even if the petitioners were not present, the court below ought to have considered the pleadings and passed appropriate orders on merit and should not have closed the reference in the manner in which it was done.

¶52

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that there is a duty cast on the petitioners to conduct the case diligently.

¶53

It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the application filed by the revision petitioners the matter has been referred to the reference court to consider the question of adequate compensation being payable for the land acquired by the government. It is seen that on 5.9.2013 when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reported no instructions and the court below had disposed of the case as follows:

¶54

¶55

C.R.P.No. 666 of 2014

¶56

“Claimant's counsel reported no instruction. Hence reference

¶57

answered against the claimant”.

¶58

There is nothing mentioned in the award as to whether any statement has been filed by the parties and any objection has been filed by the respondents. The court below ought to have considered those aspects and answered the reference after considering the objections and the purpose for which it has been referred also. Further considering the fact that the revision petitioners are the wife and children of the original petitioner, this court feels that an opportunity has to be given to the revision petitioners to meet the case on merit, for which purpose the award passed by the court below has to be set aside and the matter has been remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. So, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Sub Court, Manjeri is directed to take back LAR.No.16/2012 on file and give an opportunity to the parties to file statement if any if not filed already on file and also to take steps to prove their case and thereafter dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. In order to avoid delay in disposal of the case, parties are directed to appear before the court below on 17.10.2016. The court below is

¶59

¶60

C.R.P.No. 666 of 2014

¶61

directed to give opportunity to the parties to file statement if any if not filed and also produce documents to prove their case and after giving reasonable time, the court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the case considering the fact that the case of the year 2012.

¶62

With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the court below at the earliest.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶65

Vellanchola Sainaba v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellanchola Sainaba v. District Collector

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

Shyni Vs Sumamkunju

Dhanasree Vs Dhanesh

Ramakrishnan Vs Velayudhan

Mini P. Vs Rajendran

Sabu Markose Vs M.v.Sumon

Asha Abdul Jabbar Vs Viswambaran