Loading...

Abraham @ Biju Cherian vs The District Collector on 4 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Abraham @ Biju Cherian vs The District Collector on 4 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31317 of 2009(H)


1. ABRAHAM @ BIJU CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIYAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ALIYAMMA CHERIYAN, W/O.CHERIYAN, OF DO.

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

                For Petitioner  :SRK. JOHNSON MANAYANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :04/11/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.31317 OF 2009
                  -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009


                              JUDGMENT

1.An item of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired.

They appear to have challenged that acquisition leading to

matters before this Court in writ jurisdiction. The District

Collector passed the award. The petitioners refused to accept

compensation on ground that they were agitating against the

acquisition before this Court. Obviously, the Collector

deposited the compensation amount in the reference court.

That essentially is the reference under Section 31 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. Ext.P1 is the application of the

petitioners for enhancement of compensation. The pendency

of any reference under Section 18, if made in accordance with

law, is not a ground to exclude the conclusion of the

proceedings referable to the reference under Section 31 of the

LA Act, if such proceedings can be concluded earlier. This will

result in the claimants being eligible for release of fund which

WPC.31317/09

Page numbers

are in deposit, notwithstanding the pendency of reference

application under Section 18.

2.It appears that the reference stood dismissed for default. The

application filed for restoration of that was again dismissed for

default. The further application for restoration of the earlier

application for restoration was allowed on 26.10.2009. But, in

the mean while, the court below has issued the order dated

26.8.2009, dismissing the cheque application filed by the

petitioners. I do not find any ground to accuse the court below

of having committed any error of law or in jurisdiction, in

taking that course of action because as on 26.8.2009, the date

of dismissal of the cheque application, the reference stood

dismissed and the same was restored only on 26.8.2009,

though such restoration energises the matter fully.

3.Taking the aforesaid into consideration, it is ordered that the

impugned order dated 26.8.2009, dismissing the cheque

application, shall not stand in the way of the petitioners

WPC.31317/09

Page numbers

making a fresh cheque application and if such cheque

application is received, the court below will verify whether

there is a reference under Section 31 and if so, immediately

look into the matter to ascertain whether there is any rival

claimant. Otherwise, let cheque be issued for the amounts in

deposit, with notice to the Government Pleader, at the earliest.

Learned counsel for the petitioners volunteers to file a cheque

application tomorrow. If he does so, the same will be taken up

by the court below and orders issued at the earliest, at any

rate within a period of three weeks. This writ petition is

ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.4/11.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information