Dismissed

Terrance Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Sept 2018RP/632/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the review petition. The judge held that no error existed in the impugned judgment requiring review. Contentions regarding the assessment of compensation by a private Chartered Engineer were left open for the petitioner to agitate before the reference court. Relief sought was denied.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed; contentions regarding assessment by a private Chartered Engineer are left open for appropriate forum.

Terrance Thomas Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 13TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

RP.No. 632 of 2018 IN WP(C). 7869/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 7869/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶8

TERRANCE THOMAS S/O.N.T. JOSEPH NEDUMPARAMBIL, POONITHURA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.T.JOSEPH, S/O. THOMAN, AGED 68 YEARS NEDUMPARAMBIL, KANNADIKADU, MARADU P.O.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. E.D. GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 030

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ERNAKULAM - 682 030

¶13

3 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, NH-III, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682 019

¶14

4 THE KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD. 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE,

¶15

KOCHI - 682 011

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.JAFARKHAN, GP

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

-2-

¶19

RP.No. 632 of 2018 IN WP(C). 7869/2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision petition is filed seeking the review of the judgment dated 02.07.2018 in W.P.(C).No.7869/2018 and a direction to assess the value of the building with the assistance of a private Chartered Engineer. The issue with regard to the adequacy of the compensation in respect of the building has been directed to be considered in accordance with law. The judgment has specifically taken note of the contention taken by the petitioner that the compensation granted to the petitioner was not adequate and the petitioner was permitted to take up the matter for enhancement of the compensation before the appropriate authorities for reference to the Court.

¶22

The issue of assessment by a private Chartered Engineer is a matter for the petitioner to agitate before the reference Court. I do not feel that there is any error in the judgment which requires a review. Leaving open the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the assessment by a private Chartered Engineer to be agitated in proper forum, this review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

Judge

//TRUE COPY//

nkr/05.09.2018

P.A.TO JUDGE

Terrance Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Terrance Thomas v. the State of Kerala

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

Pmr Construction Company Vs the Superintending Engineer

Albin Baby Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha M P Vs the General Manager

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thiruvantnhapuram Development Authority (Trida)

Ramakrishnan.P Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode