AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Bhavadasan, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2005 in I.A. No. 1099 of 2003 in O.P.(E.A.) 386 of 1996 of Additional District Court, Alappuzha. By the said order, the court below dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner. It seems that for drawing an electricity line, K.S.E.Board cut and removed the trees standing in the property of the petitioners in O.P.(E.A.)386 of 1996. While the matter was pending before the court below, additional petitioners 2 to 4 sought to get themselves impleaded by filing I.A. 262 of 1997 on the ground that the property originally belonged to late Parameswaran Pillai, and on his death it devolved on the petitioner and Gopinathan Nair and on the death of Gopinathan Nair, husband of the additional second petitioner and father of the other additional petitioners, his rights devolved on additional petitioners 2 to 4. After hearing both sides, the petition was allowed by order dated 4.8.1997. By order dated 10.12.2002, enhanced compensation was granted by the District Court and in the said order, it was observed as follows:
I have already found that the petitioners are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 69,751.80 under the head diminution in land value. The additional petitioners 2 to 4 were entitled to half share over the property. So, the first petitioner is entitled to get half of the total compensation including the compensation already awarded and paid and the petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled the half. The petitioners are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% from the date of cutting of the trees till payment.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the court below by filing I.A. 1099 of 2003 seeking review of the order dated 10.12.2002 in O.P. (E.A.) 386 of 1996 granting half share of compensation to additional petitioners 2 to 4. Reliance was placed on the dismissal of a suit, O.S. 62 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Cherthala, said to have been filed by additional petitioners 2 to 4 in O.P. (E.A.) 386 of 1996 seeking partition of the property, which came to be dismissed for default. Contending that additional petitioners 2 to 4 had no right over the property, it is pointed out that the direction of the court below in the earlier order allowing additional petitioners 2 to 4 to appropriate half share of the total compensation has to be reviewed and the entire amount has to be given to the first petitioner in O.P.(E.A.) 386 of 1996.
The court below after perusing the records held that there is no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Adv. P.R. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below was not justified in dismissing the petition. It is also contended that in the light of the dismissal of the suit filed by additional petitioners 2 to 4 in O.P.(E.A.)386 of 1996 for default, it is clear that they have no right over the property and the entire compensation ought to have been granted to the review petitioner.
It is not discernible from the order of the court below whether any counter had been filed by respondents 2 and 3 before the court below. However, a reading of the order dated 10.12.2002 in O.P.(E.A.)386 of 1996 does not show that the right of additional petitioners 2 to 4 to claim the share that was due to Gopinathan Nair as his legal heirs was put in issue by the first petitioner on the earlier occasion. There was no dispute at that point of time that Gopinathan Nair had a share in the property and also that additional petitioners 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of Gopinathan Nair. Merely because a suit for partition which might have been filed by additional petitioners 2 to 4 was dismissed for default, it does not mean that they are not the legal heirs of Gopinathan Nair. It is to be noticed that the petitioner before this court has no contention that Gopinathan Nair has no interest in the property. The only contention taken is that additional petitioners 2 to 4 are not the legal heirs of Gopinathan Nair as he died as a bachelor. This issue ought to have been agitated at the time when the application for enhancement of compensation was considered by the court below in O.P. (E.A.)386 of 1996. The suit for partition filed by additional petitioners 2 to 4 was dismissed for default. As rightly noticed by the court below, merely because the suit is dismissed for default, it is not a ground to review the earlier order dated 10.12.2002. There is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.
This civil revision petition is without merits and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.