Partly allowed

Trooson v. the R.D.O., Trichur & Others

Kerala HC23 May 2011WP(C)/8921/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought permission to remove ordinary earth from private land without a sanction. The Court directed the first respondent RD.O. to consider a newly produced representation within one month and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent RD.O. to consider Ext. P5 and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Trooson Vs the R.D.O., Trichur & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8921 of 2011(M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

TROOSON, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. ANTHONY, KATTIPARAMBAN HOUSE, P.O.CHETTUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE R.D.O., THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 68001.

¶13

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶14

TRICHUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT - 68001.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULLAZHI, TRICHUR TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT-68017.

¶16

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRICHUR (WEST) – 68001.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶21

W.P.(C) No.8921 OF 2011

¶22

Dated this the 23^rd day of May 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶25

prayers:

¶26

i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to remove ordinary earth from the private property owned by him without the sanction/license of any authority as per Ext.P3 Government order and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to remove ordinary earth from the land comprised in Ext.P1 deed in accordance with law.

¶27

ii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant.

¶28

iii) Grant the cost of the Writ Petition.

¶29

When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court I.A No.7499/2011, producing two more exhibits as Exts.P4 and P5, and submitted that the grievance projected by the petitioner in the Writ Petition will stand redressed, if a direction is given to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation (produced with the I.A) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a specified time.

¶30

Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.8921/2011

¶32

¶33

In the above circumstances, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

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.

¶35

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶36

vdv

Trooson v. the R.D.O., Trichur & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trooson v. the R.D.O., Trichur & 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

K.S.Mohammed Sameer Vs Commercial Tax Officer

A.T.M.Vaidyraj Oushadhasala Vs the Asst.Commissioner(Appeals)& Another

M/S.Metro Infrasys Pvt.Ltd Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Mary Ulahannan Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Liju.P.Reji Vs Union of India

Dr.v.Viswanath Vs the Kerala Dental Council