Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

JayakrishnA.V. Vs. State of Kerala

JayakrishnA.V. vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 01, 2013
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1094542

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JayakrishnA.V.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....w.a.no.2777 of 2002. the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that if the reference order of the division bench, which led to the aforenoted full bench decision, is again looked into, it can be seen that there are certain factual issues, which did not gain attention of the full bench in w.a.no.2777 of 2002, and this would, in turn, lead to a probable conclusion that vijayakumar's case (supra) was erroneously decided by the division bench. he, therefore, says that this matter could be considered to be placed again before the full bench. op(kat) no.2960/13 -2- 2.while it may be true that the full bench had, at a later point of time, refused to condone the delay and to entertain an application for review of the judgment that it had rendered in w.a.no.2777 of 2002 and the petitioner had failed before their lordships of the apex court in his request seeking condonation of delay to challenge the decision in the earlier round, the fact of the matter remains that the tribunal cannot be criticized of having failed to act in terms of the provisions of the administrative tribunals act when it said that the parties stand bound by the inter partes judgment rendered by the full bench and the division bench of this court, as noted above, in the matters filed by the petitioner himself. in this view of the matter and the reasoning given by the full bench in w.a.no.2777 of 2002 to affirm the ratio in vijayakumar's case (supra), we do not find our way to overcome the effect of the full bench decision rendered in that case and to make yet another order of reference to full bench. adverting to op(kat) no.2960/13 -3- paragraph no.6 onwards, of the judgment delivered by the full bench in w.a.no.2777 of 2002, it can be seen that the bench had again scrutinised the basic facts and the assimilation of the relevant aspects by the division bench in vijayakumar's case (supra). when the full bench had undertaken such an exercise by reconsidering the contents of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY,THE1T DAY OF OCTOBER20139TH ASWINA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 2960 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- OA.NO.1569/2013 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM --------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE O.A.: ------------------------------------------------------------ JAYAKRISHNA.V., DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (N.C.) OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (IHRD), FORESTRY TRAINING COMPLEX, PTP NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-13. PH:8547160879. BY DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRSENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014 3. JOSEPH THOMAS,DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (PROTECTION) FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.JOSEPH BY SPL.GOVT. PLEADER(FORESTS) SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0110-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(KAT).No. 2960 of 2013 (Z) --------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED157.2013 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.1569/13. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1569/2013 ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

.................................................................... OP(KAT) No.2960 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of October, 2013.

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.The issues raised by the petitioner in his original application before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal have been decided relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala [2004(1) KLT299 as affirmed by the Full Bench in W.A.No.2777 of 2002. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that if the reference order of the Division Bench, which led to the aforenoted Full Bench decision, is again looked into, it can be seen that there are certain factual issues, which did not gain attention of the Full Bench in W.A.No.2777 of 2002, and this would, in turn, lead to a probable conclusion that Vijayakumar's case (supra) was erroneously decided by the Division Bench. He, therefore, says that this matter could be considered to be placed again before the Full Bench. OP(KAT) No.2960/13 -2- 2.While it may be true that the Full Bench had, at a later point of time, refused to condone the delay and to entertain an application for review of the judgment that it had rendered in W.A.No.2777 of 2002 and the petitioner had failed before Their Lordships of the Apex Court in his request seeking condonation of delay to challenge the decision in the earlier round, the fact of the matter remains that the Tribunal cannot be criticized of having failed to act in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act when it said that the parties stand bound by the inter partes judgment rendered by the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court, as noted above, in the matters filed by the petitioner himself. In this view of the matter and the reasoning given by the Full Bench in W.A.No.2777 of 2002 to affirm the ratio in Vijayakumar's case (supra), we do not find our way to overcome the effect of the Full Bench decision rendered in that case and to make yet another order of reference to Full Bench. Adverting to OP(KAT) No.2960/13 -3- paragraph No.6 onwards, of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench in W.A.No.2777 of 2002, it can be seen that the Bench had again scrutinised the basic facts and the assimilation of the relevant aspects by the Division Bench in Vijayakumar's case (supra). When the Full Bench had undertaken such an exercise by reconsidering the contents of Vijayakumar's case (supra), judicial discipline dissuades us from making any attempt to revisit the issue, which stands settled in Vijayakumar's case (supra) right from 30.09.2003, the date on which the Division Bench rendered that judgment. In the light of the conclusiveness on the issues obtained by the effect of the Vijayakumar's case (supra) and the decision of the Full Bench in W.A.No.2777 of 2002, the petitioner is precluded from urging a subsequent event, even in this Court. 3.For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing anything on the other aspects of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to have this matter entertained by this Court in OP(KAT) No.2960/13 -4- exercise of authority under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. This original petition, therefore, fails. In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial