Disposed

Ajoy v. the Rdo and Others

Kerala HC24 May 2011WP(C)/8098/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs against panchayat officials and educational society members regarding land in survey Nos. 219/12 and 219/14. The court disposed of the petition without deciding on merits, directing the first respondent to consider the matter after hearing all parties within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders after hearing all parties within two months.

Ajoy Vs the Rdo and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8098 of 2011(J) ------------------------PETITIONER:

¶4

--------------AJOY.L.S., S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAUSTHUBHAM, KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANUR, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

--------------1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 688001.

¶8

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGANUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.

¶9

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANUR,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001..

¶10

K.G.SURESH KUMAR, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, KALARIYIL KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PRESIDENT, SIVAPARVATHI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY(SPECS) CHENGANUR, REGISTER NO.A3010/06.

¶11

SIVAPARVATHI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY (SPECS), CHENGANUR, REGISTER NO.A3010/06, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.MURALI MANOHAR, S/O. KRISHNAPILLI, MALAYIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR R4-R5 SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN FOR R4-R5

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶15

W.P.(C) No.8098 OF 2011

¶16

Dated this the 24^th day of May 2011

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

¶19

i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to implement Ext.P3 in letter and spirits.

¶20

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to take a final decision of Ext.P2 within a reasonable time after hearing the petitioner.

¶21

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5 under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008.

¶22

iv) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

¶23

When the matter came up for admission, the 4^th and 5^th respondents entered appearance through the learned counsel and opposed the relief sought for. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the said respondents, with copies of the relevant documents. The learned counsel for the said respondents submits, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit as aforesaid, that the petitioner has approached this Court with ulterior motives, just to defeat the vested rights and liberties of the said respondent.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

¶25

respondents 1 to 3 submits on the basis of the instructions received

¶26

W.P.(C) No.8098/2011

¶27

¶28

that, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, so far as the land in question situated in survey No.219/12 and 219/14, now stands exempted from the purview of the status of “paddy land” as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008, by virtue of the notification issued, constituting the 'data bank' as to the paddy lands in question.

¶29

In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the rival contentions and the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in the light of the actual facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions of law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. Appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the 1^st respondent for taking further steps.

¶31

vdv

¶32

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

Ajoy v. the Rdo and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajoy v. the Rdo 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

Mary Ulahannan Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Liju.P.Reji Vs Union of India

Dr.v.Viswanath Vs the Kerala Dental Council

K.S.F.E.Ltd Vs P.K.Velayudhan

Pradeep P.V. Vs the District Collector.

Pradeep P.V. Vs the District Collector and Others