Dismissed

Mathew George, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC14 Jan 2019OP(C)/132/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an application for correction was not the proper remedy for heirs seeking to join the Land Acquisition Reference. The petitioners were entitled to seek re-opening of proceedings to be impleaded as additional claimants. The petition was disposed of with the right to seek appropriate reliefs reserved.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of leaving open the petitioners' right to seek appropriate reliefs before the court below to get the Acquisition Reference restored and be impleaded as additional claimants.

Mathew George, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 132 of 2019

¶6

LAR 256/2011 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM DATED 20-07-2018

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

1 MATHEW GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS

¶9

S/O.LATE GEORGE MATHEW, ATTUPURATH, CNRA-32 (T.C XI/47), CHEMPAKASSERY NAGAR, ULLOOR VILLAGE, KESAVADASAPURAM- 695004, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JACOB ABRAHAM, 13 B, WINTER MISTSEASONS, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003.

¶10

2 ABRAHAM GEORGE, S/O.LATE GEORGE MATHEW, ATTUPURATH, CNRA-32 (T.C XI/47), CHEMPAKASSERY NAGAR, ULLOOR VILLAGE, KESAVADASAPURAM- 695004, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JACOB ABRAHAM, 13 B, WINTER MISTSEASONS, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

OP(C).No. 132 of 2019

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

At the time of passing the judgment in the Land Acquisition Reference, the original claimant was no more. The original claimant had died after the closure of evidence. The factum of death was not brought to the notice of the court. The petitioners filed applications to implead themselves as additional claimants 2 and 3, to accept the Power of Attorney, to correct the judgment and decree and also to condone the delay in filing the said application. The court below has dismissed the applications essentially holding that the petition for correction is not maintainable.

¶20

The court below was right in holding that the remedy of the petitioners is not in filing an application for correction. However, it is open for the petitioners to seek for re-opening of proceedings in LAR and seek to get themselves impleaded as additional claimants. The said right cannot be curtailed.

¶21

In result, the original petition is disposed of leaving open the right of the petitioners to seek for appropriate reliefs, before the court below, to get the Land

¶22

¶23

OP(C).No. 132 of 2019

¶24

Acquisition Reference restored and to get themselves

¶25

impleaded as additional claimants.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

OP(C).No. 132 of 2019

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2014 IN LAR NO.256/2011 OF THE II ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3217/2016 OF THE PETITION TO ACCEPT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.

¶36

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3215/2016 THE PETITION TO IMPLEAD THE LEGAL HEIRS.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3216/2016 THE PETITION TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND NUMBERED AS I.A.NO.1811/2018.

¶39

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2018 IN I.A.NO.3215/2016 AND 3216/2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2018 IN I.A.NO.3217/2016.

¶40

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2018 IN I.A.NO.1811/2018.

Mathew George, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew George, v. the District Collector

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

Devaki Antharjanam Vs Sankaramangalathillath Krishnan Namboodiri

Layana Sunil(Penniya) Vs Shaji(Peter)

K.K. Pankajakshan Vs K. Mariyamma Varkey

Johnson Devassya Vs Shibi

Varghese, Vs Swathanthra Kuries Pvt. Ltd.

K.K. Manikandan, Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.