SANTHAKUMARI AMMA versus LAND TRIBUNAL, NO.II, KASARAGOD

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

SANTHAKUMARI AMMA v. LAND TRIBUNAL, NO.II, KASARAGOD - WP(C) No. 2895 of 2004(T) [2007] RD-KL 13951 (24 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2895 of 2004(T)

1. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. LAND TRIBUNAL, NO.II, KASARAGOD.
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

3. MEENAKSHY AMMA, W/O. MALINGU NAIR,

4. MALINGU NAIR, S/O. DERMAN NAIR,

5. KODOTH LAKSHMI AMMA,

For Petitioner :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :24/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.2895 OF 2004 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 24th JULY, 2007

J U D G M E N T

Service to the 3rd respondent declared sufficient. The 5th respondent-jenmi is already served. There is no appearance for her. The 4th respondent is reported dead. But then, as can be seen from the impugned order itself, the 3rd respondent who is served is the wife of the 4th respondent. The estate of the 4th respondent in this Writ Petition including the interest of his other legal heirs will be represented by the 3rd respondent who is also one of the legal heirs of the 4th respondent.

2. Ext.P4 order by which the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod allowed Ext.P3 objection-cum-application filed by respondents 3 and 4 to set aside Ext.P2 report of the authorised officer which was very much in favour of the petitioner is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

3.There is no appearance for the respondents.

4. Heard Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, counsel for the petitioner who has taken me through the various documents placed on record relating to the earlier proceedings in the litigation between the parties. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel and the background of the case as unfurled from the documents placed on record, I am of  WP(C)N0.2895/04 the view that the Land Tribunal should have passed a speaking order. I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the Land Tribunal to pass fresh orders on Ext.P3 filed by respondents 3 and 4, giving reasons as to why Ext.P2 is liable to be referred back to the authorised officer. Since the 4th respondent is reported dead, the Land Tribunal will take steps for impleading the other legal heirs of the 4th respondent also as additional parties in the proceedings. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl  WP(C)N0.2895/04 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.