Allowed

The Special Tahsildar.L.a.No.I v. Kunchamma and Another

Kerala HC1 Mar 2017OP(C)/840/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Special Tahsildar's petition to set aside the order passed by the Sub Court in the execution court. The matter is remanded to consider an appellate order that reduced compensation which the execution court had not properly accounted for.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Execution Court for fresh consideration.

The Special Tahsildar.L.a.No.I Vs Kunchamma and Another — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 840 of 2010 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P.No. 219/2007 IN LAR 28/1996 of SUB COURT, PALAKKAD, DATED 15-07-2010

¶7

PETITIONER: -

¶8

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1, KIIDC, (KINFRA), PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

¶10

RESPONDENTS : -

¶11

KUNCHAMMA, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN, MANIKKANCHALLAYIL,

¶12

PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE,

¶13

PALAKKAD - 678001.

¶14

KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695001.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(C).No. 840 of 2010 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2003.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN LAR No.23/96.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN LAR No.28/96.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN LAA No.260/05 AND CONNECTED CASES.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAA No.292/05. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED 21.7.2010.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.7.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

O.P.(c) No. 840 of 2010

¶34

Dated this the 01^st day of March, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2010 in E.P.No.219 of 2007 in L.A.R.No.28 of 1996 of Sub Court, Palakkad, the Government/respondent came up with this petition. The only objection raised by the respondent, who is the petitioner herein, is that the assessment made with respect to the building situated in the property and award passed by the Sub Court was modified in Exhibit P5 appeal reducing the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-, but it has not been taken into account by the Execution Court while passing the impugned order under Exhibit P9. It was also submitted that the appellate order was produced before the Execution Court and the very same contention was also raised in their counter, but it has not been considered properly by the Execution Court. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that it is fit and proper to set aside Exhibit P9 order and to remand back the matter to the Execution Court to consider the facts and figures afresh. With that direction, this petition is hereby allowed.

¶37

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶38

DMR/-

The Special Tahsildar.L.a.No.I v. Kunchamma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar.L.a.No.I v. Kunchamma and Another

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

Jessy Jaimon Vs State of Kerala

Susan Britto & Others Vs Sosamma Joseph

Super General Company Vs Suresh Thonikkadavu Veedu

Babu Vs Sarala Kumari

Louis Vs Haridasan

Muhammed Haji Vs Muhammedali