Allowed

State of Kerala Rep.by Special Tahsildar v. Padmakshi Kunjamma

Kerala HC8 Mar 2022RP/245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the review petition and recalled the earlier judgment in an original execution petition regarding land acquisition awards. This was done because the State subsequently filed appeals challenging the awards and the Court was considering staying execution pending those appeals.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment in original petition recalled.

State of Kerala Rep.by Special Tahsildar Vs Padmakshi Kunjamma — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

RP.245/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶7

RP NO. 245 OF 2022

¶8

¶9

OPC.1419 OF 2021

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1419/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶11

KERALA

¶12

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA,RAILWAYS, KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690106

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER VENUGOPAL V.

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 PADMAKSHI KUNJAMMA D/O KUTTY KUNJAMMA,POOPPALLIL, KARUMADI, KIZHAKKEMURI. ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688564

¶17

2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, PIN - 682016

¶18

BY ADV A.KRISHNAN

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SC FOR RAILWAYS A.DINESH RAO

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP.245/22

V.G.ARUN, J.

R.P.No. 245 of 2022

¶26

in O.P(C).No. 1419 of 2021

¶27

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2022

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This review petition is filed pointing out that, subsequent to the judgment of this Court, the Government has preferred Land Acquisition Appeals challenging the awards which are sought to be executed by the original petitioner. It is submitted that in connected appeals, this court has stayed the execution, subject to deposit of 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest and cost before the Authority within 60 days. The claimant has also been given liberty to move the Authority for withdrawal of the deposited amount in accordance with law.

¶30

2.Learned Government Pleader points out that since this court has stipulated a time limit for disposal of the execution petition, appeal in this case has not been brought up for consideration. It is submitted that it would be beneficial for the claimant also if an order, as in the other appeals, is passed in his case.

¶31

I find substantial merit in the submission. The State having preferred appeals against the awards, for the execution of which

¶32

RP.245/22

¶33

¶34

time limit is stipulated in these original petitions, I deem it appropriate to review the judgment, particularly in view of the fact that, while admitting the appeals and granting stay, this court is directing payment of 50% of the compensation amount.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the review petition is allowed and the judgment is recalled.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

¶38

vgs

State of Kerala Rep.by Special Tahsildar v. Padmakshi Kunjamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala Rep.by Special Tahsildar v. Padmakshi Kunjamma

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

Dr.P.K.Tulasidas Vs Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment

Elayidath Venugopal Nair, Vs the Commissioner

State of Kerala Rep.by Special Tahsildar Vs Santhamma

Special Tahsiladar(La) Vs K.M. Sarojini

State of Kerala Represented by Special Tahasildar Vs Sreedharan Nair

Rajalekshmi G.S. Vs Secretary to the Government