Dismissed

Safiya Moidu v. R.D.O.

Kerala HC17 Oct 2008WP(C)/26537/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.(C).26537/2008, the High Court of Kerala held that separate orders were unnecessary as an order in an earlier writ petition required the petitioner to be heard before final decisions. The court mandated maintenance of the property status quo pending fresh orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained till RDO passes fresh orders. Petitioner to be heard as per earlier order.

Safiya Moidu Vs R.D.O. — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 26537 of 2008(H)

PETITIONER(S):

SAFIYA MOIDU, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KALIYAR.P.O, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

VILLAGE OFFICER, VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶16

MOTHER SUPERIOR, ADORATION CONVENT, KALIYAR.P.O, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE,

¶17

IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶18

ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R4 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R4

¶19

GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 26537 of 2008

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

EXHIBITS
EXT.P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.6.07
EXT.P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 1.7.07
EXT.P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.07
EXT.P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.1.08
EXT.P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.6.08
EXT.P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.08
EXT.P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPOONDENT DATED 21.8.08

(TRUE COPY)

P.A TO JUDGE

V.GIRI, J

W.P.(C).26537/2008

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2008

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Having heard learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that in the light of the order passed in Writ Petition No.30402/2008, no separate orders are necessary in this writ petition, except to reiterate that the petitioner herein shall also be heard before final orders are passed, as directed in the above mentioned writ petition. It is only appropriate that status quo as regards the property in question is maintained till the RDO passes fresh orders in this regard.

¶31

V.GIRI, Judge

¶32

mrcs

Safiya Moidu v. R.D.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiya Moidu v. R.D.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P.Ramlath Vs Secretary, R.T.a., Kozhikode

Ms.Deepthi Nair Vs State of Kerala and Others

T.B.Shylendran Vs the Dist. Collector

Mathew Thomas Vs Sri.T.Balakrishnan

Meekamalil Polymers Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Director of Industries & Commerce

Kalaimani Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India