Disposed

Syam K.S, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2020WP(C)/1380/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought directions to the District Survey Superintendent to consider his representation regarding land rights. The court directed the respondent to consider the application after issuing notice to the petitioner and other legal representatives.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an order within two months after notice to all concerned and receipt of all connected documents.

Syam K.S, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 30TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.1380 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SYAM K.S, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.KRISHNA NAMPOOTHRI, SREE BHAVANAM, KEERIKAD(S),KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA-690502.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.V.VIJITHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA DEPT.OF REVENUE,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶11

2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORD,COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶12

3 DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶13

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,KEERIKAD.P.O, ALAPPUZHA-690508.

¶14

SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.1380 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶20

“(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider the Ext.P5 application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within such time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 representation has been submitted by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent and the same is liable to be considered in accordance with law.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in case all connected documents are produced before the 2^nd respondent, the issue shall be considered with notice to the petitioner as well as all concerned legal representatives of Sri.Krishnan Nampoothiri.

¶24

WP(C).No.1380 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up Ext.P5 and to issue notice to the petitioner and the other legal representatives of Sri.Krishnan Nampoothiri and any other affected parties. The petitioner shall produce all connected documents before the 2^nd respondent for a proper consideration of Ext.P5 representation. Orders on Ext.P5 representation shall thereafter be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.1380 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1278/1971 OF KEERIKAD SRO EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE KEERIKAD VILLAGE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.06.2001 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E4412/04 DATED 17.02.2004 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Syam K.S, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syam K.S, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Subhash, Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Heera Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Digin Varghese, Vs the Marriage Officer (Sub Registrar)

M/S Vodafone Idea Limited, Vs Station House Officer

Ullattil Builders Vs the Divisional Railway Manager (Works)

Dr.Amrutha K.Sadasivan Vs the President, Board of Governors