Lalithamma Vs. Saralamma

Lalithamma vs Saralamma

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 01, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1165288

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1165288
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan
Decided On: Oct 01, 2014
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

Lalithamma

Respondent

Saralamma

Excerpt

.....plaintiff is compelled to go to trial with present commission report, he may find it extremely difficult to sustain his case. it is therefore prayed for setting aside the commission report.3. the court below has observed that the question as to the acceptance of the commission report can be considered at the time of trial. there is no reason to believe that if the trial court finds that the commission report is not o.p.(c) no. 2236 of 2014 -2- acceptable or is wrong or is not in accordance with the requirements sought for by the parties, the court below will not provide an opportunity to the aggrieved persons concerned to get a fresh commission report and plan.4. it is trite that when the objections are filed to the commission report and when the commission report is found to be not acceptable, the parties should be given an opportunity to get a fresh commission report. the court below was also conscious of this fact. that is the reason why the present order has been passed. reserving the liberty of the petitioner and observing that the court below shall, if it is found that the commission report is not acceptable, provide an opportunity to both the parties to take a fresh commission for redressal of their grievances before the disposal of the suit, this petition is disposed of. p.bhavadasan judge ds

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE1T DAY OF OCTOBER20149TH ASWINA, 1936 OP(C).No. 2236 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- IN OS772009 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED1709-2014 PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- LALITHAMMA AGED65YEARS OTTAKANDATHIL, SANATHANAPURAM, KALARKODE ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SARALAMMA, AGED81YEARS D/O.CHINNAMMA, CHEERAKKATTUKIZHAKKATHIL VALIYAKUZHI MURI, MUTTOM P.O, CHAPPAL VILLAGE69050 2. KALAVATHIAMMA, AGED68YEARS D/O.CHINNAMMA, VALAVAKKOTTU VEEDU VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O, CHAPPAL VILLAGE69050 3. SREEKUMAR, AGED50YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O CHAPPAL VILLAGE69050 4. BABURAJAGOPAL, AGED52YEARS S/O.DIVAKARAN ACHARI, SREERAJAM VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O CHAPPAL VILLAGE690507.

5. KRISHNA BABURAJAGOPAL W/O.BABURAJAGOPAL, VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O CHAPPAL VILLAGE690507.

6. SREEKUMARI, AGED54YEARS D/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, VALAVAKKOTTUTHEKKETHIL VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O CHAPPAL VILLAGE690507.

7. MADHU, AGED37YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O CHAPPAL VILLAGE690507.

8. MANJU D/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O CHAPPAL VILLAGE690507. OP(C).No. 2236 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- 9. VELUKRISHNAN KAVITHAYIL, VALIYAKUZHI MURI MUTTOM P.O CHAPPAL VILLAGE690507. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0110-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2236 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.77/2009 OF THE SUB COURT MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR AND PLAN DATED143-2014. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF IA56914 FOR SETTING ASIDE THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT MAHAZAR AND PLAN ON246-2014. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF I.A.1118/14 FOR ADVANCING EXT.P3. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1118/14 IN O.S.77/09 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- //True Copy// P.A. To Judge ds P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C) No. 2236 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 01st day of October, 2014

JUDGMENT

In this original petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P5 order the court below refused to consider the application independently for setting aside the Commission report since the suit was listed for trial on 01.10.2014.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner has not located the properties as required by the plaintiff and that has caused considerable prejudice to him. It is further contended that if the plaintiff is compelled to go to trial with present Commission report, he may find it extremely difficult to sustain his case. It is therefore prayed for setting aside the Commission report.

3. The court below has observed that the question as to the acceptance of the Commission report can be considered at the time of trial. There is no reason to believe that if the trial court finds that the Commission report is not O.P.(C) No. 2236 of 2014 -2- acceptable or is wrong or is not in accordance with the requirements sought for by the parties, the court below will not provide an opportunity to the aggrieved persons concerned to get a fresh Commission report and plan.

4. It is trite that when the objections are filed to the Commission report and when the Commission report is found to be not acceptable, the parties should be given an opportunity to get a fresh Commission report. The court below was also conscious of this fact. That is the reason why the present order has been passed. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner and observing that the court below shall, if it is found that the Commission report is not acceptable, provide an opportunity to both the parties to take a fresh Commission for redressal of their grievances before the disposal of the suit, this petition is disposed of. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Lalithamma vs Saralamma Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan