Sankarankutty Vs. Raghu Kumar

Sankarankutty vs Raghu Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 20, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1166286

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/1166286
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh
Decided On: Oct 20, 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

Sankarankutty

Respondent

Raghu Kumar

Excerpt

.................................................... dated this the 20th day of october, 2014 judgment the order of the land tribunal, wadakkanchery in o.a. no.1642 of 1976 was pursuant to an application filed in form j.no appeal would lie from such order passed under section 72mm of the kerala land reforms act, 1963 (for short, 'the act'). the remedy of the revision petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 was to make a motion under section 72 mm(7) of the act. it is of course true that an appeal would lie from any order passed on motion made under section 72mm(7) of the act. 2.the appellate authority (land reforms), thrissur also erred in dismissing the application filed for leave to appeal. no leave to appeal is necessary in view of the plain and unambiguous language of c.r.p. (lr). no. 741 of 2013 2 section 102 of the act. any person aggrieved by the order of the land tribunal can maintain an appeal before the appellate authority (land reforms), thrissur. it is of course for the appellate authority to decide whether the appellants therein is prejudiced by the order of the land tribunal. 3.i set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority in a.a.no. 5 of 2013 on the file of the appellate authority (land reforms), thrissur. the revision petitioner is at liberty to move under section 72mm(7) of the act within a period of 60 days from today. any such motion shall be dealt with by the land tribunal with notice to the parties interested. 4.respondents 1 to 3 contended that the right of the revision petitioner is already concluded in o.s.no.79 of 2004 on the file of the court of subordinate judge, c.r.p. (lr). no. 741 of 2013 3 thrissur. the revision petitioner alertly pointed out that an appeal suit is being filed against the judgment and decree in o.s.no.79 of 2004. it is up to the revision petitioner to pursue the appeal suit, if any, filed against o.s. no.79 of 2001 for which no directions are required at present. this civil revision petition is disposed of. no.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY,THE20H DAY OF OCTOBER201428TH ASWINA, 1936` CRP(LR).No. 741 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

IN AA No.5/2013 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), THRISSUR DATED1708-2013 (AGAINST THE ORDER

PASSED IN O.A.NO.1642 OF 1976 BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, WADAKKANCHERY DATED2806-1976) .................................................. REVISION PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/3RD PARTY : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANKARANKUTTY, AGED57YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA MENON, ODUVIL HOUSE, PERINGAVU VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS1TO3AND APPELLANTS1AND3LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE CERTIFICATE HOLDER AND THIRD PARTIES : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAGHU KUMAR S/O.VASUDEVAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, ENKAKAD VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK680589 2. GEETHA SIVAPRASAD, D/O.VASUDEVAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, ENKAKAD VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK, NOW RESIDING VEPPANAD HOUSE, CHERUVALOOR DESOM, KORATTY680321.

3. RAJALEELA @ SHYAMA VIJAYAN, D/O.VASUDEVAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, ENKAKAD VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT B/68, MANGALAM SOCIETY, NEW ERA ENGLISH MEDIUM ROAD, OPPOSITE NOVINO, MANKARAPURA ROAD, BARODA,GUJARAT680589 4. SARASWATHY D/O.NARAYANA MENON, ODUVIL HOUSE PERINGAVU VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK680018 Contd...2/- :

2. : C.R.P.(LR).No. 741 of 2013 () 5. VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O.NARAYANA MENON, ODUVIL HOUSE PERINGAVU VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK NOW RESIDING IN SRI SADGURU KRIPA NIVAS DATTA COLONY, KALM SHETTY, MAVAL TALUK PUNE MAHARSHTRA400001. R1 BY ADV. SRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI. MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI. NELSON JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. M.D. JOSEPH THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2010-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMV V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

.................................... C.R.P. (LR). No. 741 of 2013 ............................................... Dated this the 20th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT

The order of the Land Tribunal, Wadakkanchery in O.A. No.1642 of 1976 was pursuant to an application filed in Form J.

No appeal would lie from such order passed under Section 72MM of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The remedy of the revision petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 was to make a motion under Section 72 MM(7) of the Act. It is of course true that an appeal would lie from any order passed on motion made under Section 72MM(7) of the Act. 2.The Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur also erred in dismissing the application filed for leave to appeal. No leave to appeal is necessary in view of the plain and unambiguous language of C.R.P. (LR). No. 741 of 2013 2 Section 102 of the Act. Any person aggrieved by the order of the land tribunal can maintain an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur. It is of course for the appellate authority to decide whether the appellants therein is prejudiced by the order of the land tribunal. 3.I set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority in A.A.No. 5 of 2013 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur. The revision petitioner is at liberty to move under Section 72MM(7) of the Act within a period of 60 days from today. Any such motion shall be dealt with by the land tribunal with notice to the parties interested. 4.Respondents 1 to 3 contended that the right of the revision petitioner is already concluded in O.S.No.79 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, C.R.P. (LR). No. 741 of 2013 3 Thrissur. The revision petitioner alertly pointed out that an appeal suit is being filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.79 of 2004. It is up to the revision petitioner to pursue the appeal suit, if any, filed against O.S. No.79 of 2001 for which no directions are required at present. This civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) AMV/20/10/ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Sankarankutty vs Raghu Kumar Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh