Dismissed

Kadukutty Grama Panchayath v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2018OP(C)/1280/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Grama Panchayat seeking interference under Article 227. The court upheld the lower court's dismissal of an application to record full satisfaction of a land acquisition decree, holding that interests must be agitated in a separate execution petition.

What did the court decide?

The original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

Kadukutty Grama Panchayath Vs Government of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 1280 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN LAR 5/1996 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

KADUKUTTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH

¶9

P.O.KADUKUTTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR PIN-680003

¶13

2 THRESIAMMA, W/O.JOY, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, KADUKUTTY P.O., THRISUR DIST. PIN-680 315

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.P.A.SALIM

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ASHOK MENON, J.

¶17

O.P(C).No.1280 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2018

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner Kadukutty Grama Panchayat is the second respondent in I.A.No.2377 of 2009 in LAR No.5 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda. The application was filed by the first respondent herein, the Government of Kerala under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC read with

¶21

Section 151 CPC for recording full satisfaction of the payments made to the claimant who is the second respondent herein. The claimant had also filed an application as I.A.No.3644 of 2009 stating that the decree amount has not been paid by the Government and that she is entitled to interest on the aggregate amount including the solatium, she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶22

in Sunder v Union of India (2001(3) KLT 489) . I.A.No.3644 of 2009 was however withdrawn with liberty to file a separate execution petition.

¶23

Accepting the objection raised by the claimant, IA No.2277 of 2009 for recording full satisfaction was dismissed.

¶24

The Panchayat is the beneficiary of the acquisition and hence

¶25

O.P(C).No.1280 of 2012 : 3 :

¶26

has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶27

Both sides heard.

¶28

There is apparently no error in the impugned order which requires interference of this court under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat argues that in view of the fact that the claimant has withdrawn the application filed an I.A.No.3644 of 2009 for getting interest on the compensation. This application for recording full satisfaction ought to have been allowed.

¶29

Nothing to prevent the claimant from filing the execution petition for realisation of the interest that may be due to her and the court has permitting her to withdraw the application with liberty is only appropriate. The application for recording full satisfaction was rightly dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, because, it has to be agitated in the execution petition to be filed. Withdrawal of I.A.No.3644 of 2009 does not amount to admission to record full satisfaction. In case the

¶30

application to record full satisfaction is found to be not sustainable, it has to be dismissed with liberty to the decree

¶31

O.P(C).No.1280 of 2012 : 4 :

¶32

holder to contest the execution petition as and when filed.

¶33

I find no reason to interfere in the matter. The Original

¶34

Petition is therefore dismissed.

¶35

ASHOK MENON, JUDGE

¶36

cms

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXTS :

¶38

EXT P1 : COPY OF REVISED AWARD DTD 7.6.2008 IN LAR NO.5/1996 OF PRL.SUBORDINATE JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA

¶39

EXT P2 : COPY OF IA NO.2377/2009 WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AND STATEMENT ON ACCOUNTS IN LAR NO.5/1996

¶40

EXT P3 : COPY OF PETITION DTD 22.9.2009 AND THE AFFIDAVIT IN LAR NO.5/1996

¶41

EXT P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2377/2009 IN LAR NO.5/1996 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA

¶42

EXT P5 : COPY OF THE DECREE IN LAR NO.5/1996 DTD 7.06.2008 OF PRL.SUBORDINATE JUDGE.

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXTS : NIL

¶44

/TRUE COPY/

¶45

cms

Kadukutty Grama Panchayath v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadukutty Grama Panchayath v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viswanathan Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Francis Mathew Vs K.M.Mathew

Moosa Vs Changarncholoa Unneen

Punnakkal Suresh Vs Saraswathi

T.Sahayadas Vs Sicilet Mebal

Stephenson Vs Bosco K.J. and Others