Disposed

Mooney v. District Collector

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016OP(C)/2006/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three original petitions and interlocutory applications regarding land acquisition compensation. The parties settled on a lump sum payment of ₹1,75,000, to be made by the requisitioning authority within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

The matter was settled by agreement for a payment of ₹1,75,000 to be made by respondents to claimants under a power of attorney holder by 26/02/2016.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 2006 of 2015 (O)

¶6

--------------------------E.P.NO.238/2011 IN L.A.R.NO.120/2001 OF SUB COURT-II, NORTH PARUR

¶7

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. MOONEY, S/O.POONOLY MATHAI, MATTOOR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY

¶9

HOLDER PAUL THOMAS,

¶10

MUNDADAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY.

¶11

2. MARY, W/O.OLIAPPURAM PETER BABU,

¶12

KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,

¶13

KOTHAMANGALAM KARA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF

¶14

ATTORNEY HOLDER PAUL THOMAS,

¶15

MUNDADAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY.

¶16

3. LUCY, D/O.MUNDADAN THOMAS,

¶17

KOTHAKULANGARA SOUTH,ANGAMALY, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PAUL THOMAS,

¶18

MUNDADAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.PIUS C.MUNDADAN SMT.ANJU DIVAKAR

¶20

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

¶21

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD -682 030

¶22

2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶23

NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683 585

¶24

R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJU THOMAS

¶25

R2 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

¶26

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶27

ON 16-02-2016,ALONG WITH OP(C).NO.2007/2015 AND OP(C).NO.2008/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

sts

¶29

OP(C).No. 2006 of 2015 (O)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EP.NO.239/2011 IN LAR NO.120/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT II, NORTH PARUR

¶33

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 04.06.2014 IN OPC.NO.144& 145/2014 REPORTED IN 2014 (2) KLT 961(2014(2) KHC 606)

¶34

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION CUM CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED 22.06.2015 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EP.NO.238/2011 IN LAR.NO. 120/2001

¶35

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED 29.06.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EP.NO.238/2011 IN LAR. 120/2001

¶36

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2015 IN EP.NO.238/2011 IN LAR.NO.120/2001 OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:

¶38

R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION E.A.NO.753/2007 IN LAR.NO.120/2001. R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2014 IN SLP.NO.24568/2014.

¶39

ANNEX R2(A): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CALCULATION IN LAR.NO.120/2001

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

--------------------O.P.(C) Nos.2006, 2007 & 2008 of 2015, I.A.No.10825/2015 in O.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, I.A.No.10824/2015 in O.P.(C) No.145 of 2014 & I.A.No.12473/2015 in O.P.(C) No.146 of 2014.

¶45

--------------------Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2016

¶46

The matter was deliberated at length and the balance amount due under the Awards in question was calculated and re-calculated. The parties finally agreed to arrive at a sum of 1,75,000/- as balance amount to be paid to the claimants in full and final satisfaction of their claim. The amount of 1,75,000/takes in the balance amount, interest, costs and Advocate fee and no further controversy survives.

¶47

Mr.N.N.Sugunapalan, Senior Advocate for the requisitioning authority agrees to pass on separate cheques to cover the amount of ` 1,75,000/- to Mr. Pius.C.Mundadan, Advocate for the claimants in the three cases. Ofcourse the tax is liable to be deducted at source from each of the amount due to the claimants. The amount shall be paid on or before 26/2/2016. The amount arrived at on settlement will be without prejudice to the special leave petition pending in the

¶48

¶49

¶50

Supreme Court for enhancement of compensation if any. The Original Petitions and the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of as above.

¶51

Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶52

nj/17.02.2016

Mooney v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mooney v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shani K.A. Vs Amit Meena

Karippoor Kunhimoosa Vs K.Gireesh Kumar

Jeswin.P.Joseph Vs Jerome Thomas

Asya Vs the Secretary, Shornur Municipality

Shamsudheen A.K Vs Bijumon Jacob

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union Vs P.K.Lukas, Regional Labour Commr. (Central), Tvm