Pulikkal Maryodan Ramani vs The District collector — 62/2025
Case under Land Acquisition Act \ Section 77. Disposed: Contested--AWARD PASSED on 18th March 2026.
LAR - LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE
CNR: KLKN010007602025
Filing Number
202562/2025
Filing Date
22-02-2025
Registration No
62/2025
Registration Date
22-02-2025
Court
District Court and Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery
Judge
3-2nd Additional District Judge
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AWARD PASSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pulikkal Maryodan Ramani
Pulikkal Maryodan Nalini
Pulikkal Maryodan Muraleedharan
Respondent(s)
The District collector
MD
Adv. SHAILAJAN P U
Special Tahsildar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Additional District Judge
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 23-02-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 19-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 09-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARR) in Thalassery awarded ₹2,98,69,726 in compensation to three claimants (Pulikkal Maryodan Ramani, Nalini, and Muraleedharan) for 0.6911 hectares of land acquired for an industrial park. The court held that the claimants established title and possession over the entire acquired land through valid partition deed and other documentary evidence, rejecting the government's objection regarding a measurement discrepancy. Since no rival claimants challenged the claimants' ownership and the respondents made no counterclaim, the full compensation was ordered distributed equally among the three claimants with accrued interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARR) in Thalassery awarded ₹2,98,69,726 in compensation to three claimants (Pulikkal Maryodan Ramani, Nalini, and Muraleedharan) for 0.6911 hectares of land acquired for an industrial park. The court held that the claimants established title and possession over the entire acquired land through valid partition deed and other documentary evidence, rejecting the government's objection regarding a measurement discrepancy. Since no rival claimants challenged the claimants' ownership and the respondents made no counterclaim, the full compensation was ordered distributed equally among the three claimants with accrued interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts