Dismissed

Krishnan Kutty Nair v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC22 Sept 2009RP/886/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition challenging a High Court order directing land restoration, the court held that survey discrepancies identified by the petitioner were procedural mistakes made by the Forest Tribunal during proceedings under the Odredinance of Acquisition, not a ground for judicial review. The petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the Tribunal. The judgm

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move the Forest Tribunal for appropriate orders regarding survey corrections.

Krishnan Kutty Nair Vs State of Kerala and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931

¶5

RP.No. 886 of 2009(D)

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21876/2007

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS

¶8

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

¶9

KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.KARTHIYANNI AMMA, CHERMBALA PUTHEN VEEDU, KEESHUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. CUSTODIAN EX OFFICIO SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE(FOREST SPECIAL)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE FOREST CONSERVATOR, EASTERN CIRCLE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶16

GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.886 OF 2009

¶19

¶20

W.P.(C) NO. 21876 OF 2007

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2009

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The writ petition was filed complaining that land ordered to be restored by the Forest Tribunal in OA NO.103/1977 was not restored. By judgment rendered in WP(C) No.21876/2007, it was directed that survey shall be completed and the land shall be restored.

¶25

It is now pointed out that on actual survey, the survey number of a portion of land mentioned in the OA order and also in the judgment in the writ petition is found to be different, though the total extent remains the same. It is on that basis petitioner seeks review of the judgment and to direct the respondents to restore an extent of 1.33 acres of land, which are constituted in Sy.Nos.71/3 and 71/4, as against Sy.No.71/4 mentioned in the OA order and judgment.

¶26

If at all this is a mistake, the said mistake has been committed in the proceedings in the OA and if correction is needed, such correction should be sought at the hands of the Forest Tribunal.

¶27

RP No.886/09 in WPC 21876/07

¶28

:2 :

¶29

Therefore, I do not find any merit in this review petition and is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to move the Forest Tribunal for appropriate orders.

¶30

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶31

Krishnan Kutty Nair v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan Kutty Nair v. State of Kerala and 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

M.P.Kuberan Vs Taliparambu Trichambaram Kanjirangad

K.K.Prabha and Others Vs Kerala Agricultural University Rep, by

Sathyapalan Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Sn Up School,Pothinkandam Vs State of Kerala

B. Bhuvanendran Nair Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

N.P.Mini Vs State of Kerala