Disposed

Thomas Joseph v. the Geologist and 2 Others

Kerala HC19 Nov 2009RP/1108/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged the expiry of the three-month period granted for land reclamation. The Court directed the petitioner to represent partial completion to the Geologist within 10 days to potentially secure extended time for reclamation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the Geologist within 10 days to claim enlargement of time for completion of land reclamation.

Thomas Joseph Vs the Geologist and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

RP.No. 1108 of 2009(N)

¶6

---------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22601/2008 Dated 05/08/2008

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER

¶8

---------------------------------------------

¶9

THOMAS JOSEPH, NITHIYIRIKKAL HOUSE, KUMMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU

¶11

SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

--------------------------------------

¶14

1. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.1108 OF 2009 IN

¶20

W.P.(C) NO. 22601 OF 2008

¶21

=====================

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2009

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The review of the judgment in WP(C) No. 22601/08 is sought

¶25

for.

¶26

By the judgment, it was directed that the petitioner will reclaim the land as required in Ext.P1 in the writ petition and that in order to enable the petitioner to do so, the revenue recovery proceedings then initiated will be kept in abeyance for three months. It is more than a year after the expiry of the time fixed in the judgment, this review is sought mainly contending that despite the best efforts of the petitioner, he could only partially reclaim the land, and that in the meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings are resumed against him.

¶27

Learned Government Pleader submits that the demand

¶28

made against the petitioner on the instructions of the Geologist included the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 in the writ petition as also royalty due from him. Against that demand, when the petitioner made representations, the matter has been intimated

¶29

:2 :

¶30

R.P.No.1108/09

¶31

to the Geologist and that the Geologist is to quantify the dues towards non reclamation of the land and that instructions in this behalf are awaited. Therefore, as at present, no coercive action is pending against the petitioner.

¶32

As already stated, the grievance of the petitioner is that in compliance with the directions in the judgment, he could only partially reclaim the land. Having regard to the submissions thus made, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to take up his case before the Geologist that he has already partially reclaimed the land and that he needs further time for completing the reclamation. If such a representation is made, it will be open to the Geologist, the 1^st respondent herein to hear the petitioner, and if satisfied that the petitioner has partially reclaimed the land, to enlarge the time for reclaiming the balance extent of the land also.

¶33

Petitioner may produce a copy of this order before the Geologist, and if so advised, may make a representation as above within 10 days from today.

¶34

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶35

Thomas Joseph v. the Geologist and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Joseph v. the Geologist and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Vasudevan Vs South Malabar Gramin Bank

M.Ramakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala State Pharmacy Council Vs State of Kerala and Another

S.Ramachandran Nair Vs Defence Pension Disbursing Officer

K.C.Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ramachandran.v Vs the Govt. of Kerala