Dismissed

Sukumaran v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC16 Jul 2010WP(C)/17298/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged respondents' inaction on a Vigilance report regarding alleged forgery in a Land Tribunal record concerning a kudikidappu benefit application. The court allowed recording of the respondents' statement dismissing the writ petition. No other interlocutory relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed following the recording of the respondents' statement; no other orders passed.

Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala and Another — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 17298 of 2010(J)

PETITIONER(S):

SUKUMARAN,S/O.RAMANKUTTY,NEEROZHUKUNNAM CHALIL,KOTHANELLOOR, VAIKOM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

DIRECTOR,VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1-2

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(C).No. 17298 of 2010

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.131/1999 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kottayam. The said application was filed seeking benefit of kudikidappu, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner. An appeal is pending in respect thereof from 2006. An allegation was raised regarding forgery of the records by the officers of the Land Tribunal. The Vigilance Court and this Court directed the DySP to inquire into the matter. The DySp submitted a report. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the respondents are not taking any action pursuant to the said report.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader has filed a statement explaining the steps taken by the respondents on the report received. They have stated that as far as the allegation of forgery is concerned, there is no evidence in support the same. But two employees were proceeded for dereliction of duty and disciplinary proceedings are in progress. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the averments in the statement, the statement can be recorded and the writ petition may be closed. Ordered accordingly.

¶25

sdk+

¶26

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶27

///True copy///

¶28

P.A. to Judge

¶29

Sukumaran v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Karthiayini Janaki Vs Goplapakrishna Pillai

K.T. Jose Vs Kanakambaran

C.D.Jose Vs Joseph P.R.

Ambazhakan Vs the Deputy Ranger

P.K.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Preetha Vs Supdt. of Survey and Land Records