Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 29- May 05, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 272-281] Kallodi St. George Forane Church V K Mohandas, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 272M/s Punarnava Ayurveda Hospital Pvt Ltd v. The Arbitrator for NH-66, WP(C) No. 6947 of 2024, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 273Ajay Peter v Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 274BS Jayakumar v. State of Kerala, Mansoor J v. State of Kerala, A. Abdul Rasheed @ Dr. AR Babu v. State of Kerala and Sreelatha v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 275M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281Judgment/Orders This Week'Belated, Inconsistent Pleas': Kerala High Court Dismisses Review Petition Claiming Possession Over Govt Held Land After 70 YrsCase Title: Kallodi St. George Forane Church V K MohandasCitation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 272The Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition stating that a litigant cannot take inconsistent pleas before the Court without being vigilant of his rights.Dismissing the review petition, Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan held that the Court cannot accept belated contention based on the maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt”.“Now, after about 70 years, the review petitioner is taking a stand that they have got title to the property. Such a belated contention cannot be accepted by this Court. The review petitioner is taking a stand from 1952 onwards that the property in dispute is in their possession, but the ownership is with the Government. After about 70 years, when this Court passed the impugned judgment in this review petition, the review petitioner is taking a stand that the review petitioner has got title to to the property. This is nothing but an inconsistent plea by the review petitioner.”NHAI Arbitration| Landowner Can Seek Appointment Of An Expert Commissioner To Determine True Value Of Property: Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/s Punarnava Ayurveda Hospital Pvt Ltd v. The Arbitrator for NH-66, WP(C) No. 6947 of 2024Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 273The High Court of Kerala has held that a landowner dissatisfied with property categorization by Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) can request an Expert Commissioner's appointment to ascertain the property's actual value.The bench of Justice Viju Abraham held that an arbitrator cannot dismiss a landowner's application under Section 26 for an expert commissioner's appointment without considering their arguments, solely relying on the CALA report.[Coastal Zone Regulations] Kerala High Court Directs Authority To Only Consider Request For Construction Of Buildings After Approval Of 2023 Cadastral Map Case Title: Ajay Peter v Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority & Connected Cases Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 274 The Kerala High Court directed the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority or other competent authorities to consider or reconsider the sanction request for the construction of buildings only after approval of the 2023 Cadastral Map by reducing the distance of 200 metres in CRZ- III to 50 metres. “As an upshot of my findings, I allow all other writ petitions, quash the impugned notices, in all matters/writs, issued by gram panchayats or KCZMA, even if they are issued by the committee or not, with further direction that the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority or other competent authorities would consider/reconsider request for sanction or take action only when the Cadastral Map of 2023 is approved by the Government whereby the distance of 200 metres in CRZ- III has been reduced to 50 metres and then examine each and every case, pending or future applications, depending upon the location, situation and the extent of construction, permitted or prohibited”, stated Justice Amit RawalSanction To Prosecute Public Servant Issued After Reconsideration Of Evidence Can't Be Rejected Merely Due To Refusal Of Previous Sanction: Kerala HCCase Title: BS Jayakumar v. State of Kerala, Mansoor J v. State of Kerala, A. Abdul Rasheed @ Dr. AR Babu v. State of Kerala and Sreelatha v. State of KeralaCitation Number: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 275The Kerala High Court has stated that a sanction to prosecute public servants issued after reconsideration of the evidence submitted cannot be rejected on the grounds that the previous sanction was refused by the competent authority.“In the present case, the competent authority in the Government refused sanction to prosecute the public servant including accused No.2 which compelled the investigating agency to submit a refer report before the Trial Court. The Court returned the refer report with a direction to place the entire materials before the sanctioning authority to...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 29- May 05, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags