Thomas Mathew vs Rajamanickam Ias
2021 Latest Caselaw 16344 Ker

Con.Case(C) No.452/2021                         1/3

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                             PRESENT
                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
            Wednesday, the 4th day of August 2021 / 13th Sravana, 1943
                CON.CASE(C) NO. 452 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 10869/2019
   PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C)

       1. THOMAS MATHEW,NELLUVELIL HOUSE,NADAKKAL P.O.,ERATTUPETTA,KOTTAYAM
          DISTRICT, PIN-686 121.
       2. MARIAMMA MATHEW,NELLUVELIL HOUSE,NADAKKAL P.O.,ERATTUPETTA,KOTTAYAM
          DISTRICT,PIN-686 121.
       3. PRADEEP JOSEPH,VADAKAKEPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,NADAKKAL
          P.O.,ERATTUPETTA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 121.

         BY ADVOCATE SRI.JUSTINE JACOB,
   RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 4&5 IN WP(C)

       1. SRI.RAJAMANICKAM IAS,THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL
          DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,T.C.11/266,KESTON
          ROAD,KOWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
       2. SRI.SEERAM SAMBASIVA RAO I.A.S.,THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL
          STATION,KOZHIKODE.

         ADVOCATE SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R1
        This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
   04.08.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:
 Con.Case(C) No.452/2021                          2/3




                                A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
                               ==========================
                                 Cont. Case (C) No. 452 of 2021
                          ====================================
                              Dated this the 4th day of August, 2021

                                         ORDER

The present District Collector, Kozhikode is

present before this Court through online. The Officer submits that he can rework the calculation within

three working days. The Officer further submits that

the delay occurred due to the huge disparity between

the agricultural income tax returns and the inputs

now given by the confident authority and therefore,

he requires certain clarifications from this Court.

In fact, in the judgment itself, this Court adverted

to the factors which is required for the

redetermination of the market value.

2. The opinion given by the expert body as well

as the other factors can be taken into account for determining the market value. Necessary guidelines

are there in the judgment as well as in the Government

Order referred in the judgment.

3. In the light of above, the matter is

adjourned to place a copy of the order before this Con.Case(C) No.452/2021 3/3 Cont. Case (C) No. 452 of 2021 ..2..

Court redetermining the compensation.

4. The District Collector need not be present

in the next occasion.

Post on 11.08.2021.

Sd/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

PR

04-08-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar