Allowed

Anila Kanal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2016FAO/22/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the lower court order dismissing an application for restoration of a Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) on the grounds of excessive delay, and directed condonation of delay upon payment of costs to the requisitioning authority. Appellants are barred from claiming interest for the delay period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dismissing the restoration application are set aside, delay is condoned, cost of Rs. 2000 payable to the requisitioning authority.

Anila Kanal Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937

¶6

FAO.No. 22 of 2016

¶7

(AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 28.2.2015 IN I.A.NO.5962 OF 2012 AND I.A.5965 OF 2012 IN L.A.R.NO.157/06 ON THE FILE OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM)

¶8

APPELLANTS/1ST AND 3RD PETITIONERS/1ST AND 3RD CLAIMANTS:

¶9

ANILA KAJAL, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. LATE KANAKAMBARAN, MALEPARAMBIL THIRUVANKULAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

AMALJITH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE KANAKAMBARAN, MALEPARAMBIL THIRUVANKULAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)

¶14

RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM- 682 016.

¶15

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM 682 016.

¶16

AMRITHA PRIYA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.LATE KANAKAMBARAN, MALEPARAMBIL THIRUVANKUALAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

R BY SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC, RAILWAYS.

¶18

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL.

¶19

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶22

F.A.O. No.22 of 2016

¶23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Antony Dominic, J.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the appellants, Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. Notice to the third respondent, who was also a petitioner along with the appellants in the impugned order, is dispensed with.

¶27

Orders impugned in this appeal are in I.A.5962/12 and I.A.5965/12 in L.A.R.157/06 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. By these orders, the court below has declined to condone the delay of 1229 days in filing I.A.5962/12, petition for restoration of LAR, and accordingly dismissed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. It is seen that similar orders passed by the Sub Court, Ernakulam were set aside by this court in F.A.O.164/15 and connected appeals and in F.A.O.189/15. For the aforesaid reason, the orders passed by the Sub Court, Ernakulam in I.A.5962/12 and 5965/12 in LAR 157/06 are set aside subject to the appellants paying cost of Rs.2000/- to the requisitioning authority, which shall be paid within one month from today and memo shall be produced before the Sub Court,

¶28

F.A.O. No.22 of 2016

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

Ernakulam. It is also made clear that in the event the L.A.R. is answered in favour of the appellants, the appellants will not be entitled to interest and other benefits for the period of delay in filing the applications in

¶31

question before the Sub Court and also the 173 days of delay which was

¶32

condoned by this court.

¶33

SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

SD/-

A.HARIPRASAD

JUDGE

jes

Anila Kanal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anila Kanal v. State of Kerala

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

Kshemavilasom Kuri Company Vs Shanmughanandhan

Reghunathan Vs Kesavanm Sreedharan

Union of India Vs Parassinkkadau Ayurveda Medical College

Sandya Ajith Vs Kishore

M/S Icici Bank Ltd. Vs Sophiyamma Mathew

V.Krishna Kurup Vs v.Krishnadas