Joyichan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 19 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25005 of 2008(B)


1. JOYICHAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.PRAMOD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :19/08/2008

 O R D E R
                     PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
                      ------------------------
                  W.P.(C)No.25005 of 2008
                      ------------------------
             Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008

                           JUDGMENT

The learned Government Pleader Sri.Basanth Balaji takes

notice on behalf of the first respondent. Sri.Joby Cyriac, the

learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent.

2. Heard both sides. Under challenge in this writ petition

under Article 226 is Ext.P3 judgment of the land acquisition

reference court declining to answer the reference on the ground

that the reference in as much as the same has been made not on

the basis of a valid application for reference. The learned

Subordinate Judge has referred to and relied on the judgment of

the Division Bench of this court in Pathootty v. District

Collector (2004 (3) KLT 348) for holding that the reference

(Ext.P2) made by the Land acquisition Officer on the basis of

Ext.P1 statement filed by the petitioner is not a valid reference.

It appears to me that a subsequent judgment of another Division

Bench of this court, authored by the same senior judge who

WPC.No.25005/2008 2

authored the judgment in Pathootty’s case (supra), in Antony

v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 583) is a more apposite

precedent governing the fact situation which obtains in this case.

It appears to me that if Antony’s case was cited before her, the

learned sub judge would have become inclined to take different

view .

I dispose of this writ petition without deciding the merits of

the grounds raised permitting the petitioner to seek review of

Ext.P3 judgment and Ext.P4 decree on the basis of the judgment

in Antony’s case. If the petitioner files a review petition as

permitted above within 10 days from today, the review petition

will be entertained by the learned Subordinate Judge and the

same will be disposed of on merits without delay.

(PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE)
dpk