Allowed

B.Sarojam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2016OP(C)/2407/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil writ petition under Article 227, the High Court of Kerala directed the Sub Court to expedite an execution petition involving land acquisition compensation within four months. The Court also ordered the Government to deposit the awarded amount, citing the petitioner's critical cancer condition and advanced age. The order quashed the delay and fixed a strict timeline for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direct the II Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of E.P. 618/2014 within four months; direct Government Pleader to ensure deposit of the awarded amount for the cancer patient.

B.Sarojam 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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2407 of 2016 (O)

¶6

LAR 88/2011 of II ADDL.SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

B.SAROJAM, W/O. LATE SUGATHAN, AGED 72 YEARS, MADATHIL VEEDU, ARASUMOODU, KULATHOOR P.O, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.R.SURESH KUMAR SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 001.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNO PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.

¶14

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.J.JOHNSON R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

OP(C).No. 2407 of 2016 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 24/09/2013 IN LAR NO 88/2011 ON THE FILES OF IIND ADDL. SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NO K1-38235/2014 DATED 3/6/2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE R.P NO 618/2014 IN LAR NO 88/2011 ON THE FILES OF IIND ADDL. SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶29

O.P. (Civil) No.2407 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking speedy disposal of

¶33

E.P.618/2014 in LAR 88/2011 of 2^nd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the claimant in LAR 88/2011 of 2^nd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and after evidence, enhanced compensation has been awarded as per Ext.P1 award along with other cases. The first respondent has given sanction to the concerned land acquisition officer to deposit the decree amount evidenced by Ext.P2. No appeal is filed against the same. Since the amount has not paid, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 execution petition as E.P.618/2014 which is pending before that court. Notice has not been served so far. Petitioner filed E.A.438/2016 for attachment and that is also pending. Since there was no sitting in that court, for some days, it is being adjourned by notification. She is a cancer patient aged 72 years, she requires the amount for her treatment and also to clear her debts. So she has no other remedy, except to approach this court seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

a direct the II Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to dispose of Ext.P3 E.P. within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court; and

¶36

ii. grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶37

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that the

¶38

petition can be disposed of after getting a report from the concerned court

¶39

O.P. (Civil) No.2407 of 2016

¶40

¶41

regarding the present stage and also time required for disposal of the case. Accordingly a report has been called for and the learned Sub Judge has sent a report which reads as follows:

¶42

“The decree holder in LAR 88/2011 has filed execution petition on 04.12.2014 numbered as EP 618/2014 before this court to execute the decree for enhanced compensation with other statutory benefits. On the very same day it was returned for curing the defect and represented before the court on 10.12.2014. On that day the decree holder was directed to take steps for issuance of notice to judgment debtors 1 and 2 and the case was adjourned for report as to service of notice to 06.04.2015. On the above posting date this court ordered to repeat notice to judgment debtors and posted the case to 07.08.2015. Then the case was adjourned on notification to 05.12.2015 and again adjourned on notification to 25.06.2016 as there was no regular sitting before this court and the Principal Sub Judge was holding additional charge. On 25.06.2016 the petition was again adjourned as the Presiding Officer was on duty leave on account of District Level Training and the case was adjourned on notification to 08.07.2016. On the above date the presiding officer was on leave and hence the case was again adjourned to 04.12.2016 for report as to service of notice to the judgment debtors. The case is at present stand posted to 14.12.2016 for the appearance of judgment debtors. It is seen that the judgment debtor has filed objection against the Execution Petition.”

¶43

In the report it is only mentioned that the case is now posted to 14.12.2016 for appearance of the judgment debtors and also stated that the judgement debtor filed objection to the execution petition, both do not go togeter. Further time required for disposal was also not mentioned.

¶44

Heard Sri.N.R.Suresh Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.I.Johnson, Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Smt.K.V.Reshmi, standing counsel for the second respondent.

¶45

O.P. (Civil) No.2407 of 2016

¶46

¶47

The grievance of the petitioner is that, though execution petition is pending from 2014, in respect of an LAR matter of 2011, the Government has not deposited the amount so far. When the property has been acquired by the Government, they have got a duty to deposit the amount in time as party has not only lost the land but also not able to realise the amount from the Government. However considering the fact that the petitioner is a cancer patient and a senior citizen aged 72 years, some priority must be given in disposal of this case of such nature. So this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶48

The 2^nd Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to expedite disposal of E.P.618/2014 in LAR 88/2011 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Government Pleader is also directed to inform the Government showing the pitiable condition of the petitioner that she is a cancer patient and aged 72 years, make arrangements to deposit the amount within that time.

¶49

Hand over a copy of this judgment to the Government Pleader so as to inform the concerned authorities to take steps to comply with the direction.

¶50

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.A. to Judge

¶53

B.Sarojam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sarojam 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

A.Syam(Incorrectly Shown as a.Sathyan in the Order) Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

Seema S. Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

S.Pradeep Kumar Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

K.K.Balan Vs Suresh

Archana M.A. Vs Sathasivanpilla N.

Vidhya Vs Satheesh.K