Ramla v., v. Moythuppa
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment reviews a decision in a writ petition regarding land restoration attempted by the original petitioner. The court held that the petitioner cannot claim restoration unless they establish their right before the Divisional Forest Officer, noting the claim of alienated property.
What did the court decide?
The review petition allowing the matter to be considered by the Divisional Forest Officer is allowed; the judgment is reviewed to that extent.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941
RP.No.647 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 4337/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4337/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
RAMLA V., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. SAKHEER HUSAIN, PONNNITHELI HOUSE, ARIPRA P.O., CHIRAKKA PARAMBU, ARIPRA DESOM, VALAMBUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679321.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 MOYTHUPPA, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. BEEYOOTTI UMMA, PULLATHU VEEDU, KUMARAM PUTHOOR AMSOM, MANNARKKADU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678583.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reviewer assertion of alienated property affects the writ attempt of property restoration.
Whether the petitioner can assert title to the property involved in the original O.A. No.259/1975 before the competent forest authority.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
RAMLA V.
- respondent
MOYTHUPPA
- respondent
THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, STATE OF KERALA
- respondent
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OLAVAKKODE
- respondent
THE STATE OF KERALA
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court