Remanded

Joymon@ John Vallanat v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Feb 2024OP(C)/1971/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Petitioner, a 4th claimant in a land acquisition dispute, challenged an order dismissing his Section 151/152 Application for correction in compensation distribution. The High Court held the application non-maintainable under Sections 151/152 CPC but directed the petitioner to approach the Sub-Judge for review of the underlying judgment to secure his share.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was disposed of; directions were issued to file an application for review of the Ext.P2 judgment before the Additional Sub Judge.

Joymon@ John Vallanat Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1971 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.2 OF 2021 IN L.A.R No.3 OF

¶7

2015 DATED, 26.07.2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/4th CLAIMANT:

¶9

JOYMON@ JOHN VALLANAT
AGED 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT VALLANATT HOUSE, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
KOCHI – 682 018, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER MARY JOY, WIFE OF JOYMON @ JOHN
VALLANAT, RESIDING AT VALLANATT HOUSE, ERNAKULAM
NORTH, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018

¶10

BY ADVS.
VIJU THOMAS
M.MEENA JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSIDAR (LA),NHNO.III, VYTTILA, PIN – 682 031

¶13

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 668

¶14

3 SINKARAM 43/896, ARUN NIVAS, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 18., PIN – 682 018

¶15

4SHERLY JEROME
VALLANATT (H), BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI -15.,
PIN – 682 015

¶16

5KUMARI
W/O. SINKARAM, RESIDING AT 43/896,

¶17

O.P.(C).No. 1971 of 2022

¶18

¶19

THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM NORTH,

¶20

PIN – 682 018

¶21

6 ARUNKUMAR

¶22

S/O. SINKARAM, RESIDING AT 43/896,
THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM NORTH,

¶23

PIN – 682 018

¶24

7 ANOOPKUMAR S/O. SINKARAM, RESIDING AT 43/896,THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018

¶25

8JACOB A VALLANAT
S/O. ABRAHAM A VALLANATT, H. NO. 44/1420, PALLATH
NAGAR, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN
PIN – 682 025

¶26

9 JOSEPH KETTLE VALLANATT (H), ASHIRBHAVAN ROAD, KACHERIPADY -PIN – 682 018

¶27

10 TEENA MICHAEL W/O. PA MICHAEL, CEMETRY JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN, PIN – 682 018

¶28

BY ADVS.

¶29

S.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL-GOVERNMENT PLEADER
M.U.VIJAYA LAKSHMI
MANU VYASAN PETER
SHERRY J. THOMAS
T.G.PAUL
MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU)
SYRIAC JOSEPH(K/304/1980)
CAROLIN MARIA ALEX(K/2992/2022)
P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994)
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009)
SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998)
K.A.SHAJI MATHEW(S-344)
JOEMON ANTONY(K/000484/2017)

¶30

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶31

O.P.(C).No. 1971 of 2022

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

 Dated, this the 27th day of February 2024

¶35

The petitioner herein is the 4thclaimant in

¶36

L.A.R No.28/2014, which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment,
as per which, Claimant No.1 and Claimants 5 to 10
were found to be the persons having title over the
acquired land. Accordingly, the compensation amount
was directed to be deposited, so as to distribute
the same by and between the said Claimants as
stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioners
grievance is that though the petitioner was the 4th
Claimant in the said L.A.R, he was not issued with
any notice and his right over the property has not
been recognized. He was not given any amount towards
compensation, apart from the amount assessed by the
land acquisition officer. The petitioner filed
Ext.P3 application under Section 151 and 152 of a
Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to correct the
mistake in Ext.P2 judgment, allowing enhanced

¶37

O.P.(C).No. 1971 of 2022

¶38

¶39

compensation, along with the statutory benefits. The
petitioner wanted the benefit of the judgment to be
extended to the petitioner as well, in so far as,
his extent of 0.04 Ares of land acquired. Ext.P3
application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge
by Ext.P4 order, finding that Ext.P3 application
under Sections 151 and 152 is not maintainable. The
said order is under challenge in this Original
Petition.

¶40

2.Heard Sri. Viju Thomas, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. S.Unnikrishna Kaimal,learned
Government Pleader on behalf of the first
respondent, Smt. M.U Vijayalakshmi for the second
respondent, Adv. Sherry. J. Thomas for respondents 3
and 5 to 7 and Adv T.G.Paul for respondents 8 to 10.

¶41

3.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, this court finds no illegality
or infirmity with respect to Ext.P4 order in its

¶42

¶43

O.P.(C).No. 1971 of 2022

¶44

finding that an application under Section 152, or

¶45

for that matter under Section 151, is not
maintainable to redress the greviance of the
petitioner. However, this court finds substantial
merit in the basic submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is
also entitled to a share of the enhanced
compensation, proportionate to the extent held by
him in the acquired land. Depriving the petitioner
of the said amount would work out serious injustice.

¶46

4.In the circumstances, this court would relegate
the petitioner to the course of filing appropriate
application before the learned additional Sub Judge
concerned in LAR No. 3/2015, seeking review of
Ext.P2 judgment, so as to modify the same after
recognising the petitioner’s right and title over
the acquired land and also for corresponding
correction/modification of the compensation amount
to be distributed between the parties accordingly.

¶47

O.P.(C).No. 1971 of 2022

¶48

5.Having regard to the fact that acquisition is
of the year 2011, the application for review, if
any, filed by the petitioner will be considered
expeditiously by the learned Sub Judge.

¶49

This Original Petition is disposed, as of above.

¶50

 Sd/-

¶51

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

SSG

¶53

O.P.(C).No. 1971 of 2022

¶54

¶55

¶56

`PETITIO`	`NER’S`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`
		`30.01.2019 IN LAR NO. 28 OF 2014 OF THE` **`HON'B
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`
		`06.06.2019 IN LAR NO. 3 OF 2015 OF THE` **`HON'B
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `23.01.2021 AS I.A. NO. 2 OF 2021 IN LAR` `NO. 3 OF 2015 OF THE HONORABLE 3RD SUB` `COURT; ERNAKULAM`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED` `26.07.2022 IN I.A NO.1 OF 2021 AND I.A.` `NO. 2 OF 2021 IN LAR NO. 3 OF 2015`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`True copy of the reply dated 25/02/23 of` `the Special Thahasildar (LA) Office of NH` `111, Vytilla`
`RESPOND`	`ENTS’`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`R8(a)`	`True copy of the IA No 1 of 2021 in LAR` `No 3/2015 filed before the Hon'ble Sub` `Court, Ernakulam`
`Exhibit`	`R8(b)`	`True Copy of the Judgement in Dwaraka Das` `Vs. State of MP (1999) 3 SCC 500`
`Exhibit`	`R8(c)`	`True Copy of the Judgment in Nainsingh Vs` `Koonwarjee ( 1970 KHC 233) of the Honble` `Supreme Court of India`

Joymon@ John Vallanat v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joymon@ John Vallanat v. State 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

Puthen Kovil Bhagavathy Temple Vs Ajitha Kumari

P.C. Herian Vs (Decree Holder) Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd.

Anitha Anand Vs Gita Pillai

Fathima A.K Vs Hassain a

K.A. Abraham Vs Cherian Ashram Holistic Centre Trust

M/S. Sepc Limited (Formerly Shriram Epc Limited) Vs Sri. v. S. Sunilkumar