Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1088691
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnSep-04-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
AppellantSreekumar
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice thottathil b.radhakrishnan & the honourable mr.justice c.t.ravikumar wednesday, the4h day of september201313th bhadra, 1935 rp.no. 329 of 2013 ----------------------------------- against the order/judgment in la.app. no. 725/2011 dated0703-2012 .... review petitioner(s)/respondents1to5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. sreekumar, residing at 'sreyas', tc21460, judge road, karamana po, thiruvananthapuram695002.2. raj kumar, residing at 'asoka'minichin road, thycaud, thiruvananthapuram695014.3. santhosh kumar, residing at 'ponnu', tc21159(1), judge road, karamana po, thiruvananthapuram695002.4. p.s.gopakumar, residing at 'sreyas'tc21460, judge road, karamana po.,.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE4H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201313TH BHADRA, 1935 RP.No. 329 of 2013 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN LA.App. NO. 725/2011 DATED0703-2012 .... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS1TO5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SREEKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'SREYAS', TC21460, JUDGE ROAD, KARAMANA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695002.

2. RAJ KUMAR, RESIDING AT 'ASOKA'MINICHIN ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695014.

3. SANTHOSH KUMAR, RESIDING AT 'PONNU', TC21159(1), JUDGE ROAD, KARAMANA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695002.

4. P.S.GOPAKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'SREYAS'TC21460, JUDGE ROAD, KARAMANA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695002.

5. THANKI, RESIDING AT 'SANTHOSH', NEAR COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITAL,MURINJAPALAM, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM683565. BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU RESPONDENT(S):APPELLANT & 6TH RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN- 695 001.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 33 KV SUB STATION, KSEB POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - PIN- 695 525. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0409-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss RP.NO.329/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE VAKALATH. ANNEX.II: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER

PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN LAA.NO.725 OF2011DTD. 07/03/2012. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

.................................................................... C.M.Appln. No.381 of 2013 & R.P.No.329 of 2013 in LAA No.725 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of September, 2013. ORDER

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

C.M.Appln. No.381 of 2013 1.Perused affidavit. Heard. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing this review petition. Hence, delay is condoned. R.P.No.329 of 2013 2.The short ground on which this review petition is filed is that the review petitioners, who were the respondents in the land acquisition appeal, were not heard at the final disposal of that appeal. It appears that, initially, an interlocutory application for rehearing of the land acquisition appeal was filed. Registry did not number it, but treated it as defective and sent it to the Bench. RP No.329/13 in LAA72511 -2- The Bench granted leave to the applicants in this review petition to file review petition. 3.By now, we are told that there is an appeal on behalf of either the State or the requisitioning authority insofar as the award, which was the subject matter of the appeal in relation to which this review petition is filed, is concerned. This means that both the LAAs arising from LAR No.2 of 2003 of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara ought to have been consolidated for hearing and disposal. We are told by the learned counsel for the KSE Board that LAA No.363 of 2012 filed by the KSE Board is still pending. Under such circumstances, ends of justice require that the judgment sought to be reviewed is recalled to pave way for a joint hearing of LAA No.725 of 2011 and LAA No.363 of 2012. 4.In the result, this review petition is allowed recalling the judgment sought to be reviewed. LAA No.725 of 2011 is re-opened. List this LAA along with LAA No.363 of 2012 as per roster. RP No.329/13 in LAA72511 -3- Having regard to the fact that the aforesaid situation is as a result of non-listing of cases together and because there was defect in the vakkalat, which was left uncured, we are of the view that review petitioners are entitled to refund of the entire court fee paid in this review petition. Refund ordered accordingly. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jg