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.

K.Sivanandan Vs. T.Radhakrishnan

K.Sivanandan vs T.Radhakrishnan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 16, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1164552

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

K.Sivanandan

Respondent

T.Radhakrishnan

Excerpt

.....as on2108/2013. annexure i: true copy of the notice issued by the taluk surveyor, taluk office, palakkad. true copy pa to judge a.m.shaffique, j * * * * * * * * * * * * * review petition no.652 of 2014 in w.p.c.no.13663 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- dated this the 16th day of september 2014 order this review petition is filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition seeking review of the judgment dated 20/06/2014. it is submitted by the review petitioner that the writ petitioner has no title or possession in respect of the property against which relief has been sought for in the writ petition whereas the property absolutely belongs to the review petitioner. since the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, he did not get an opportunity to make his submissions and therefore he has moved before this court with this review petition.2. perusal of the aforesaid judgment would disclose that the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage after getting instructions from the learned government pleader. the only instruction submitted by the learned r.p.no.652/2014 in w.p.c.no.13663/2014 2 government pleader was that the application for measurement of the property was not submitted in the proper form.3. counter affidavit is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition controverting the allegations raised in the review petition.4. having gone through the averments in the review petition as well as the counter affidavit, i am of the view that the interest of the parties will be substantially affected if the judgment is allowed to operate. hence it is all the more necessary that the review petitioner is heard before final order is passed in the writ petition . in the result, the review petition is allowed. judgment dated 20/06/2014 is recalled. post w.p.c.no.13663/2014 before the appropriate court. (sd/-) (a.m.shaffique, judge) jsr r.p.no.652/2014 in w.p.c.no.13663/2014 3

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE16H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201425TH BHADRA, 1936 RP.No. 652 of 2014 (G) IN WP(C).13663/2014 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN WP(C) 13663/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2006-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ K.SIVANANDAN AGED46YEARS S/O. APPUKUTTY, VIVEKALAYAM HOUSE, KANJIKULAM.P.O. KALLADIKODE VIA, PALAKKAD-678596. BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT1TO3 ------------------------------------------ 1. T.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED51YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, THEKKUMKARA VEEDU, PERUMTHATTAPRAMBU GURUVAYUR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101.

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD-678001.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDOOR-2 VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678592.

4. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN.H. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1609- 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX TO RP.No. 652 of 2014 (G) IN WP(C).13663/2014 ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.183/1965, OF S.R.O PARLI ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3757/97 OF S.R.O PARLI. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1730/2004 OF S.R.O PARLI. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF BUILDING TAX ISSUED BY THE MUNDUR PANCHAYAT. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED2809/2007 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-SURVEY OFFICE. ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED2005/2009. ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED211/2009 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT TO THE WRIT PETITIONER. ANNEXURE H: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR AS EARLY AS ON2108/2013. ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * Review Petition No.652 of 2014 in W.P.C.No.13663 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September 2014 ORDER

This review petition is filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition seeking review of the judgment dated 20/06/2014. It is submitted by the review petitioner that the writ petitioner has no title or possession in respect of the property against which relief has been sought for in the writ petition whereas the property absolutely belongs to the review petitioner. Since the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, he did not get an opportunity to make his submissions and therefore he has moved before this Court with this review petition.

2. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment would disclose that the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage after getting instructions from the learned Government Pleader. The only instruction submitted by the learned R.P.No.652/2014 in W.P.C.No.13663/2014 2 Government Pleader was that the application for measurement of the property was not submitted in the proper form.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition controverting the allegations raised in the review petition.

4. Having gone through the averments in the review petition as well as the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the interest of the parties will be substantially affected if the judgment is allowed to operate. Hence it is all the more necessary that the review petitioner is heard before final order is passed in the writ petition . In the result, the review petition is allowed. Judgment dated 20/06/2014 is recalled. Post W.P.C.No.13663/2014 before the appropriate court. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr R.P.No.652/2014 in W.P.C.No.13663/2014 3

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial