High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 03 KL CK 0233

Jameela Beevi, Puduval Veedu, Madhavapuram Colony, Kochuvelil Karikkakom Muri, Kadakampilly Village and Others vs State of Kerala, Mytheen Picha and Sherifa Beevi

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 23 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pius C. Kuriakose, J · A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
LA. No. 555 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 324 words

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellants who were parties to LAR No. 93 of 2003 before the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the award passed by the Reference Court. On going through the grounds raised in this appeal, it is seen that all the grounds pertain to claim of the appellants to have the compensation amount apportioned between the various awardees in a particular manner. But we find that the reference in question was u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Subordinate Judge answered the above reference re-fixing the value of the land under acquisition. All the grounds pertain as already indicated only to the appellants'' claims over the compensation amount presently awarded by the Reference Court which is seen awarded under the impugned award substantially in favour of the third respondent. Even before the Learned Counsel for the appellant opened his submissions Sri.J.Harikumar, Learned Counsel for the third respondent raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable in law. He drew our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sreekantan v. Sreekumaran Nair, 2007(1) KLT 100 (SC). He submitted that it is impermissible for the reference court dealing with a reference u/s 18 to deal with matters which are germane for references u/s 30. The reply of the Learned Counsel for the appellant was that the documents which will enable the present appellants to receive a much higher share than what is presently seen awarded under the impugned award, were obtained by the appellants only subsequently. We feel that the remedy of the appellants lies elsewhere. We find force in the submission of Mr. Harikumar founded as the same is on a judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra that the appeal is not maintainable. We hold that the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is rejected. Refund the full court fee remitted on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellants.