IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 990 of 2011(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.4332/2010 IN LAR.97/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER : ------------------- GOPALAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SYAMALALAYAM, PERUNNA EAST, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.(GENERAL), KOTTAYAM-686001. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROAD DIVISION, KOTTAYAM-686001. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER T.B.RAMANAND THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, ALONG WITH O.P.(C) NO.991/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.(C).Nos.990 & 991 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Since the Writ Petitions arise out of the common order, they are being considered together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The respective claimants in L.A.R.Nos.90 of 2008 and 97 of 2008, on the file of the court of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, filed belated applications to amend the claim statement. The court below held that repeated attempts were made by the petitioners to protract the proceedings. However, by way of extreme indulgence and in the interests of justice, the applications for amendment were allowed on payment of costs of ` 1,000/- each within seven days. The petitioners filed review petitions seeking to review that order. The applications for review were also dismissed. The petitioners challenge those orders in the Original Petitions. The court below allowed the OPPC Nos.990 & 991/2011 2 applications. The petitioners cannot have any grievance in respect of the same. However, the petitioners were directed to pay costs of ` 1,000/- each. They are aggrieved by that portion of the order. Though the court below thought that the applications are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, in the interest of justice, the court below allowed the applications on payment of cost. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law or manifest injustice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are permitted to deposit the costs on or before 18.3.2011. If the petitioners deposit the costs on or before 18.3.2011, the court below shall treat that the order dated 3rd December, 2010 is complied with. The Original Petitions are disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl