Special Tahsildar (La) vs Sreekumarn Nair

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
        TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                          RP NO. 347 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1558/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                 KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S/1st RESPONDENTIN O.P.(C):

            STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
            (LA)
            RAILWAYS,KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690106
            BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


RESPONDENT/S/PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P.(C):

    1       SREEKUMARN NAIR
            S/O JANARDHANAN
            PILLAI,CHILLAMADATHIL,KOMANA,AMBALAPUZHA, PIN - 688561
    2       THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CONSTRUCTION II)
            SOUTHERN RAILWAY ,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016
            BY ADV A.KRISHNAN


     THIS    REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 347 OF 2022
                                 2

                       ORDER

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2022 This review petition is filed pointing out that subsequent to the judgment of this Court, the Government has preferred Land Acquisition Appeals challenging the awards which are sought to be executed by the original petitioner. It is submitted that in connected appeals, this court has stayed the execution, subject to the Government depositing 50% of the compensation amount, with proportionate interest and cost, before the Authority within 60 days. The claimant has also been given the liberty to move the Authority for withdrawal of the deposited amount in accordance with law.

2. Learned Government Pleader points out that, since this court has stipulated a time limit for disposal of the execution petition, appeal in this case has not been brought up for consideration. It is submitted that it would be beneficial for the claimant also, if an order, as in the other appeals, is passed in his case. RP NO. 347 OF 2022 3

3. There is substantial merit in the submission. The State having preferred appeals against the awards, for the executionof which time limit is stipulated in these original petitions, I deem it appropriate to review the judgment, particularly in view of the fact that, while admitting the appeals and granting stay, this court is directing payment of 50% of the compensation amount.

In that view of the matter, the review petition is allowed and the judgment is recalled.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK