High Court Kerala High Court

Aneesh.V.V. vs Special Tahsildar on 29 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Aneesh.V.V. vs Special Tahsildar on 29 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29649 of 2006(D)


1. ANEESH.V.V., S/O.VASU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. GEORGE DEVASSIA, VELIYATH HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :29/05/2008

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
               -----------------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C)No. 29649 OF 2006
               -----------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008

                            J U D G M E N T

The prayer in this writ petition is that the compensation for 50

cents of land in survey No.438/1A1A1 (Re. sy. No. 62/3) of

Padinjarathara Village in Vythiri Taluk may not be paid by the first

respondent Land Acquisition Officer to the second respondent and that

the amount be paid to the petitioner being legal heir of his father Vasu

who was the original owner. The learned counsel for the second

respondent submitted that the compensation amount has already been

released by the first respondent to the second respondent on the

strength of a document of sale executed in favour of the second

respondent in execution of a decree for specific performance of

contract for sale of the property in question. Learned Government

Pleader has placed before me the written instructions received by him

which will show that the submission of the counsel for the second

respondent is correct. The Government Pleader also placed before me

a copy of sale deed No. 2786/95 executed by the Judge in O.S.17/92

of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Sulthan Bathery in favour of the

second respondent. I am convinced on my perusal of the copy of the

above sale deed that the stand of the second respondent is a correct

WP(C)N0.29649/07
-2-

one. The writ petition has become infructuous in the sense that the

money has already disbursed to the second respondent and the same

is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the judgment dismissing

this writ petition will not stand in the way of petitioner seeking remedy

from a competent civil court against second respondent or anybody

else if so advised.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
ksv/-