Allowed

The Chief Commander, Indian Coast Guard v. J.Sarathchandran Nair

Kerala HC11 Jan 2021RP/571/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed review petition holding earlier judgment vitiated by errors apparent on record as it proceeded on incorrect assumption that petitioner surrendered land in 2015, despite sale deed executed only in 2018, directing registration to list underlying writ petition for admission.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment in writ petition recalled; writ petition listed for admission.

The Chief Commander, Indian Coast Guard Vs J.Sarathchandran… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.571 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 21331/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 21331/2017 DATED 21-082017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/4th RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶8

THE CHIEF COMMANDER, INDIAN COAST GUARD INDIAN COAST GUARD,VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 521.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

¶11

1 J.SARATHCHANDRAN NAIR S/O. JANARDANAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHANDRAMANGALAM, T C 7/1385-1, VETTA MUKKU, THIRUMALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 006.

¶12

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE(B) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE COMMITTEE CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043.

¶15

R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER G. RANJITA

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

..2..

¶18

Review Petition No.571 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017

¶19

Review Petition No.571 of 2018

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The fourth respondent in the writ petition has instituted this review petition, seeking review of the judgment in the writ petition. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition.

¶24

The Chief Commander of the Indian Coast Guard, the fourth respondent, has required the State Government to acquire two parcels of land in the possession of the petitioner for the purposes of the Indian Coast Guard. Proceedings were accordingly initiated for the said purpose by the competent authority of the State Government, and as part of the said proceedings, the District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) constituted by the State Government has fixed the land value of the land in the possession of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has agreed to convey the land in his possession straight away to the fourth respondent at the rate

¶25

..3..

¶26

Review Petition No.571 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017

¶27

fixed by the DLPC by executing Ext.P10 consent letter, the District Collector gave a communication to the fourth respondent on 21.03.2016 requiring him to get the sale deed of the land directly from the petitioner by paying the land value in terms of the decision of the DLPC. Since steps have not been taken by the fourth respondent to get sale deed of the land from the petitioner by paying the land value in terms of the decision of the DLPC as required by the District Collector in terms of his letter dated 21.03.2016, the petitioner has instituted the writ petition on 27.06.2017 alleging that in the light of Ext.P10 consent letter, he is unable to make use of the land for other purposes. This court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself directing the fourth respondent to disburse the amounts payable to the petitioner for the land within two months. It was also directed that if the amounts are not paid within the aforesaid time, the petitioner shall be paid interest also for the amounts at the rate of 12% per annum.

¶28

The fourth respondent has not complied with the direction in the judgment to effect payment due to the petitioner within two months. Instead, the fourth respondent preferred I.A. No.

¶29

..4..

¶30

Review Petition No.571 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017

¶31

19025 of 2017 seeking extension of the time prescribed in the judgment. This Court dismissed the above interlocutory application on 07.12.2017 taking the view that if the amounts due could not be paid within the time stipulated, the amount can be paid with interest as clarified in the judgment itself.

¶32

The review petition was filed in the meanwhile on 05.07.2018 contending that the judgment in the writ petition was rendered on an incorrect assumption that the petitioner has already surrendered the land to the fourth respondent; that the fourth respondent is yet to obtain possession of the land from the petitioner and that t he delay in getting the sale deed of the land is due to the delay in obtaining appropriate sanction from the concerned department of the Central Government for acquiring the land.

¶33

Heard the learned Central Government Counsel for

¶34

the review petitioner as also the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

It is seen that the petitioner had no case in the writ petition that he had surrendered the land referred to in the writ petition to the fourth respondent. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition, on the other hand, was that since the copies of

¶36

..5..

¶37

Review Petition No.571 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017

¶38

the documents of title of the land have already been collected from the petitioner, he is unable to make use of the land for any other purpose. The prayers sought in the writ petition, in the circumstances, was for a declaration that the consent letter issued by him has become unenforcible. Alternatively, the petitioner has also sought directions to the fourth respondent to pay compensation fixed for acquisition of the land forthwith. As revealed from the judgment itself, the writ petition was disposed of with the directions aforesaid on the incorrect assumption that the petitioner had surrendered the land to the fourth respondent on 14.12.2015. Similarly, it is seen that it is on that premise, this court dismissed even the interlocutory application filed by the fourth respondent for extension of time.

¶39

In the course of the arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the fourth respondent has taken the sale deed of the land from the petitioner during the pendency of the review petition on 03.12.2018 after paying the land value fixed by the DLPC. It was, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the petitioner has not been paid interest as directed by this court in view of the pendency of

¶40

..6..

¶41

Review Petition No.571 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017

¶42

this proceedings.

¶43

In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has executed Ext.P10 consent letter on 14.12.2015 agreeing to sell the land to the fourth respondent at the land value fixed by the DLPC, sale deed has been obtained from him by the fourth respondent only after almost 3 ½ years, on 03.12.2018. According to the learned counsel, the equitable relief granted by this court to the petitioner for delayed payment for the amounts due, in the circumstances, is not liable to be recalled.

¶44

No doubt, the fourth respondent has not obtained sale deed from the petitioner within a reasonable time, and there was considerable delay on the part of the fourth respondent in taking the sale deed from the petitioner. Certainly, there is justification for the petitioner in claiming equitable relief for the delay in providing the land value of the property. But, insofar as it is found that the directions in the judgment were rendered on the incorrect assumption that the petitioner who has surrendered the land to the fourth respondent as early as on 14.12.2015 did not get the land value despite the lapse of almost 18 months, I am of the

¶45

Review Petition No.571 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017

¶46

view that the directions are vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the records. Equitable relief, if any, to be granted to the parties to a proceedings is to be worked out on an appreciation of the true facts.

¶47

In the circumstances, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 21.08.2017 is recalled. Registry is directed to list the writ petition for admission as per roster.

¶48

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

ds 07.01.2021

The Chief Commander, Indian Coast Guard v. J.Sarathchandran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Commander, Indian Coast Guard v. J.Sarathchandran Nair

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

K.I.Paulose Vs Sri.B.Ashok

Thankappan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Yousaff C.a., Vs the District Collector

Shibu K.S Alias Shobu Siddik, Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Sakeer Vs Pallarimangalam Grama Panchayat