Partly allowed

M.P. Job v. the District Collector

Kerala HC16 Aug 2017RP/581/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Petition allowed with specific direction to substitute the penultimate sentence of the judgment dated 10.04.2017 to direct the Corporation to identify surrendered land and restrict road construction to that area.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed only to the extent of directing the Court below to modify its judgment to identify surrendered land for road construction.

M.P. Job Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/25TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 581 of 2017 ()

¶6

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

¶7

WP(C) 4945/2014 of THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶8

--------

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC :

¶10

M.P. JOB, MUKKADAYIL HOUSE, PALATHURUTH, FATHIMA CHURCH ROAD, COCHIN.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC :

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶14

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM 682 002.

¶15

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM, 682 011.

¶16

4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 682 011.

¶17

5. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 682 011.

¶18

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

SRI.C.P. PRADEEP

¶20

R5 BY SRI.K.P.JUSTINE(KARIPAT)SC,

¶21

BY SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR,SC,

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶25

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

¶26

R.P.No.581 of 2017 IN

¶27

W.P.(C).No.4945 of 2014

¶28

======================== Dated this the 16^th day of August 2017

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

On a perusal of the averments in the review petition, I am of the view that the penultimate sentence in the judgment dated 10.04.2017 needs to be substituted with the following sentence:

¶31

“Taking note of the report of the Head Surveyor, and finding that, it is a matter of fact that, there was land that was surrendered by the said Sri.Thomas Kuruvila to the respondent Corporation for the purposes of construction of the road, I feel that the writ petition can be disposed directing the respondent Corporation to identify the land surrendered by the said Sri.Thomas Kuruvila, which is referred to in the report of the Head Surveyor, utilising the services of the Head Surveyor and other officials of the Revenue Department, and ensure that the construction of the road is effected only through the land so surrendered by the said Sri.Thomas Kuruvila, so as to retain the width of the Thodu as mentioned in the Field Measurement Book of the respondent Corporation referred to in Ext.P3.”

¶32

The review petition is allowed to the above extent.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶35

¶36

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

M.P. Job v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P. Job v. the District Collector

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

Davis P K Vs Authorised Officer

K.J.Chacko Vs Intelligence Officer

Nisha Basheer Vs Bajaj Finance Ltd.

K.Vijayan Vs the Authorized Officer, Allahabad Bank

State Bank of India Vs Prasanna Kumari T.V

M/S.Bhima Enterprises Vs Intelligence Inspector