Partly allowed

Dharmarajan v. K Muraleedharan

Kerala HC27 Mar 2015RP/328/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed seeking review of an order directing the State to consider a claim regarding property after a hearing. The Court directed the second respondent to implement the earlier directions after hearing both parties, granting one month for compliance, without determining the merits.

What did the court decide?

A further period of one month granted to comply with directions to afford hearing to both parties as per the earlier judgment.

Dharmarajan Vs K Muraleedharan — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/6TH CHAITHRA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 328 of 201515

¶6

AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 9.1.2015 IN WP(C) 815/2015.

¶7

PETITIONER(S/3RD PARTIES TO THE WRIT PETITION:

¶8

1. DHARMARAJAN ILAMBISSERY, AADINADU SOUTH, AADINADU VILLAGE, KATTILKADAVU(P.O), KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 542.

¶9

2. ANANDAN THAMBI, ILAMBISSERY, AADINADU SOUTH, AADINADU VILLAGE, KATTILKADAVU(P.O), KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 542.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.NIDHIBALACHANDRAN SRI SABUE GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶12

1. K. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, PRESIDENT, ILAMBALLISERRY SHRI BHADRAABHAGAVATHI TEMPLE TRUST, AADINAD SOUTH, AADINADU VILLAGE, KATTILKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 542.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT(REVENUE), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

3. ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPALLY - 690 518.

¶15

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, AADINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 573.

¶16

R1 BY SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R2 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

RP.No. 328 of 201515

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.10.2013 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AADINADU. ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.4.2014 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AADINADU. ANNEXURE 3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO.1634/1102. ANNEXURE 4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF CHAIN SURVEY VIJNANAKOSAM' WRITTEN BY A.D THOMAS ALAPPATTU. ANNEXURE 5 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ========================= Review Petition No.328 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.815 of 2015

¶28

============================ Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2015

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The review petitioner has approached this Court seeking the

¶31

review of the judgment dated 09.01.2015, whereby the writ petition preferred by the 1^st respondent was disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated that the property concerned herein is actually belonging to the review petitioner and the writ petitioner does not have any right over the same. It is also pointed out that some vital aspects

¶32

were not revealed by the writ petitioner while filing the writ petition, which is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

¶33

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. It is stated that the matter is still to be finalised.

¶34

In the said circumstance, the direction given by this Court as per judgment dated 09.01.2015 in W.P.(C) No.815 of 2015 shall

¶35

R.P No.328/2015 in W.P(C) No.815 of 2015

¶36

¶37

be implemented by the 2^nd respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the writ petitioner as well as the review petitioner herein. A further period of one month is granted so as to comply with the direction. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merits

¶38

of the case.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶41

vdv

Dharmarajan v. K Muraleedharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmarajan v. K Muraleedharan

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

Bindu C. Nair Vs Dr. Viswas Metha

K.S. Ramachandran @ Ksr Chandran Vs District Collector

K.O.Abraham Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Abdul Latheef Vs District Collector, Kozhikode

Jinu Kandathil Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Wilson Vs District Collector