Dismissed

P.K.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2016RP/24/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the challenge to its earlier judgment in a writ petition regarding the petitioner's lease benefits. The court held that despite unread attention to an exhibit, the previous finding that the petitioner was entitled to benefits from a specific date stood.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as it did not comprise any merit following the maintained finding that the petitioner was entitled to benefits from 9.2.2000.

P.K.Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 24 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.5809/2007, DATED 03-11-2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :

¶8

SHRI.P.K.ABRAHAM, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE MATHEW KURIAN, PUNCHATHALAKKAL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY HOUSE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

¶10

SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695 001.

¶13

2. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (UNDERTAKING OF GOVT.OF KERALA), SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN- 695 001.

¶14

3. THE MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAYITHARA, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA TALUK, PIN- 688 524.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

RP.No. 24 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶21

A1: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 28.05.1991.

¶22

A2: TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 27.01.2003.

¶23

A3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

A4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.12.2015.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶31

***************************************************************************** R.P.No.24 of 2016

¶32

¶33

****************************************************************************** Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2016

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The review petition is at the instance of the writ

¶36

petitioner. This Court considered the right of the writ petitioner to obtain outright sale of an allotted land to him as a

¶37

lessee.

¶38

By Ext.P1 Government Order, the Government

¶39

classified two categories of lessees. Thereafter, the petitioner

¶40

was given the benefit as a lessee coming under the second

¶41

category of 1.12.1994 to 1.2.1996 as per Ext.P4. This was revoked as per Ext.P11 stating that since the petitioner was the

¶42

allottee only in the year 22.5.2000 instead of 7.5.1991, the

¶43

petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit.

¶44

R.P.No.24 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.5809 of 2007 2

¶45

This Court disposed the writ petition on the finding

¶46

that though the petitioner was initially inducted on 28.5.1991, in view of the fact that the petitioner was evicted thereafter and reallotted on 9.2.2000, the petitioner would be entitled for any benefit as lessee from 9.2.2000.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that this Court did not advert to the impact of Ext.P4 while disposing the writ petition.

¶48

Though this Court did not advert to Ext.P4 while considering large issue, it was found that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit as lessee with effect from 9.2.2000. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this review petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶51

P.K.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Abraham v. State of Kerala

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.K.Rajendran Vs Director,Kirtads

Official Receiver Vs Special Tahsildar

Suresh Kumar.G.K. Vs Rajamma

Shaji Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Vs Executive Engineer (Civil)

Sunitha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram