IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 12100 of 2007(M)
1. JYOTHIRMAYI, KIDANGILTHEKKATHIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :11/04/2007
O R D E R
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) NO. 12100 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2007
J U D G M E N T
—————————-
Heard. Admitted. Learned Government Pleader takes
notice for the respondent. The Writ Petition itself is heard and
disposed of as agreed to by both sides.
2. Certain extent of property belonging to the petitioner
was acquired for a public purpose. Dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, petitioner
made a request for referring the case for enhancement of
compensation and LAR No.330 of 1997 was registered. The said
case came up for trial on 17.5.2005. On that day petitioner was
absent. Hence the learned Sub Judge closed the LAR finding that
the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was
just and reasonable. Petitioner filed I.A. No.1515 of 2005 under
Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the LAR dismissed for
default. Learned Sub Judge took a view that there was no
dismissal for default and the LAR was dismissed on merits and
W.P(C) NO. 12100 OF 2007
-: 2 :-
hence the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 was dismissed
as not maintainable. Challenging that order, this Writ Petition is
filed.
3. The case was referred to the Sub Judge to consider
the request of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.
Materials on record also show that the reference was closed on
account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to appear and
give evidence. Though it may not be possible to treat it as a case
for dismissal for default, the learned Sub Judge could have
treated the application as one filed to review the judgment
passed in the LAR. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of
the view that it is a fit case in which the petitioner an be given an
opportunity to adduce evidence and contest the case on merits.
For that purpose, the orders passed by the learned Sub Judge
dismissing I.A. No.1515 of 2005 and also the judgment passed in
LAR No.300 of 1997 are liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order passed
by the learned Sub Judge, Kollam in I.A. No.1515 of 2005 and the
judgment passed in L.A.R. No.300 of 1997 on 17.5.2005
W.P(C) NO. 12100 OF 2007
-: 3 :-
confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer are
hereby set aside. I.A.No.1515 of 2005 is allowed. The Sub Judge
is directed to take LAR No.300 of 1997 back to file and dispose
of the same in accordance with law after giving the petitioner
a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence.
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.
vsv
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
================================
M.F.A. NO. OF
================================
J U D G M E N T
——————————————————
–
9TH APRIL, 2007