KALATHINGAL ITHIKUTTY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the legal heirs of the original claimant in L.A.R. No. 111/2000 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri. The Reference was under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The second respondent in the L.A.R. which is the requisitioning authority, is the second respondent herein. It is stated that the original claimant died on 27.07.2007. Before that, as the claimant was bedridden, he failed to appear before the Court below on 20.07.2004, when the case was taken up for trial. On that day, the counsel for the claimant reported no instruction and the claimant was set ex parte. Reference Court also held that the claimant is not entitled to get any enhancement.

(2.) AFTER getting information about the order, the appellants filed I.A. Nos. 1003/2012 and 1004/2012 in the said case to condone delay of 2825 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13. The same has been dismissed by the Court below by taking the view that as the award is also on merits, the applications may not lie.

(3.) WE have perused the order passed by the Court below dated 20.07.2004. After setting aside the claimant ex parte, it has also been held that the claimant is not entitled for enhanced compensation. The Division Bench in Kunjayyan's case (supra) has elaborately considered various related legal aspects. It has been held that even if the claimant wrongly files an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the same can be treated as one filed under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 159 CPC.