Allowed

V.G.Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/12358/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that respondents could not apply the amended definition of fair value for applications submitted before the amendment. Petitioners holding less than 25 cents were entitled to fee exemption and refund. An incorrect land classification entry was directed to be rectified.

What did the court decide?

Orders directing description of land changed in Revenue records were set aside, fee refunded within two months, and land classified correctly in tax records.

V.G.Jose Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 9599 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

V.G.JOSE AGED 68 YEARS S/O.M.V GEORGE, MURUPPEL, KANNAMKODU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523

¶7

BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001

¶10

2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033

¶11

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 645

¶12

4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR, PIN-691 523

¶13

5 TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 523

¶14

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 523

¶17

7 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PIN-691 523

¶18

BY SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23354/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12358 OF 2022

¶25

PETITIONERS:

¶26

1 V.G.JOSE AGED 68 YEARS S/O.M.V.GEORGE MURUPPEL, KANNAMKODU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 523.

¶27

2 LICY JOSE AGED 65 YEARS W/O.V.G.JOSE, MURUPPEL, KANNAMKODU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 523.

¶28

BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI

¶29

RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶31

2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.

¶32

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR, PIN - 691 523.

¶36

5 TAHSILDAR (LR) TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 523.

¶37

6 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 523.

¶38

7 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, ADOOR, PIN - 691 523.

¶39

BY SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23354/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶42

: 5 :

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶46

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶47

WP(C) NO. 23354 OF 2022

¶48

PETITIONER:

¶49

ANUP MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. C.A. MATHEW, TC. 27/111, AMBA NAGAR, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.

¶50

BY ADV G.SUDHEER

¶51

RESPONDENTS:

¶52

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶53

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.

¶54

3 TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, KUDAPPANKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.

¶55

BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).9599/2022, 12358/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶58

: 6 :

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶62

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶63

WP(C) NO. 27663 OF 2022

¶64

PETITIONER:

¶65

PRABHAKARAN V. AGED 72 YEARS S/O. RAMAN NAIR, SUPRIYA, 54/410, PUTHURKKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003.

¶66

BY ADV K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶67

RESPONDENTS:

¶68

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶69

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶70

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶71

2 THE SECRETARY

¶72

REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001

¶73

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶74

THRISSUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶75

4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶76

5 THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003

¶77

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶78

BY SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶79

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23354/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶80

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

: 7 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) Nos.9599, 12358, 23354 and 27663 of 2022

¶85

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2022

¶86

J U D G M E N T

¶87

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶88

All these writ petitions relate to payment and

¶89

refund of fees under Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The question arising in all these writ petitions is common and hence these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.

¶90

The petitioners are title holders in possession of

¶91

lands which were described as 'Nilam' in the respective Basic Tax Registers. The extent of property held by each of the petitioners is less than 25 Cents. The petitioners wanted to change the nature of their respective land in Revenue records. They submitted applications in Form-6 invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

¶92

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 8 :

¶93

Wetland Rules, 2008. Their applications were allowed and the petitioners were directed to remit substantial amounts as fee for changing the nature of land in Revenue records. The petitioners, under compulsion, paid the fees demanded. The petitioners are now before this Court seeking refund of the fee erroneously levied.

¶94

The counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 and 12358 of 2022 would argue that the amendment to Section 2(viA) defining “fair value” of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was made with effect from 01.04.2020. Since the petitioners in these two writ petitions submitted Form-6 applications prior to 01.04.2020, fee should be computed based on the definition of the term “fair value” as it stood prior to the amendment. The respondents have computed the fee taking into consideration the fair value of the adjacent lands, which is impermissible.

¶95

The counsel for the petitioners further urged that this Court has held in Vimal Vincent v. RDO, Irinjalakkuda

¶96

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 9 :

¶97

[2020 (1) KLT 145] that the fee for conversion under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 can be quantified only on the basis of fair value of the specific property involved, as fixed and notified under Section 28A of the Stamp Act and in no other manner. The petitioners have a further case that since the property involved is less than 25 Cents, they are entitled to exemption from payment of fees.

¶98

The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 and 12358 of 2022 have a further grievance that on passing orders on their Form-6 applications, the respondents have directed to describe the land of the petitioners as 'സ�ഭ�വ വ�ത�യ�ന� നടത�യ പ�രയ�ട�', in Revenue records. The petitioners would contend that such a description of their land would go against the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

¶99

The Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petitions. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners have submitted applications for changing the nature of their

¶100

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 10 :

¶101

respective lands in Revenue records. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 mandate that prescribed fee should be paid once orders are passed permitting to change the nature of the land in Revenue records. After obtaining orders in their favour, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they are not liable to pay fee. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.23354 and 27663 of 2022 filed Form-6 applications subsequent to 01.04.2020. Therefore, there is no error in fixing the fee of the petitioners based on the fair value of adjacent lands.

¶102

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶103

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶104

It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 and 12358 of 2022 are persons from whom fee has been collected based on fair value of the adjacent lands. As the petitioners had submitted their applications prior to 01.04.2020 on which date Section 2(viA) was amended, the applications of the petitioners were liable

¶105

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 11 :

¶106

to be considered without adverting to fair value of the adjacent lands.

¶107

As regards exemption from payment of fee, Schedule I to Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 was amended with effect from 25.02.2021 and exemption from payment of fees was granted to lands having area upto 25 Cents. On 25.07.2021, the Government had issued a Circular whereby a cut off date was fixed for applications seeking change in the nature of the land. The Circular was challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Baby v. District Collector [2021 (6) KLT 316] held that the Circular was unconstitutional.

¶108

This Court held that when the State Government intended to classify and exclude farmers holding up to 25 Cents of unnotified paddy land from payment of fee / charge for utilisation of the same for other purposes, there cannot be a further classification based on the date of submission of the application.

¶109

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 12 :

¶110

This Court has again considered the issue in W.P. (C) No.5449/2019 and connected cases and held that when the State Government intended to classify and exclude farmers holding up to 25 Cents of unnotified paddy land from payment of fee/charge for utilisation for changing the nature of the land for other purposes, there cannot be a further reclassification based on date of submission of application. This Court ordered refund of fee.

¶111

In view of the law laid down by this Court as discussed above, the petitioners whose applications under the Act, 2008 are in respect of lands less than 25 Cents, are entitled to exemption from payment of fee. Consequently, they are entitled to refund of fee erroneously paid.

¶112

The petitioners have a further grievance that even after obtaining orders on Form-6 applications, the Revenue authorities have effected changes in Revenue records describing their property as 'സ�ഭ�വ വ�ത�യ�ന� നടത�യ പ�രയ�ട�'. Neither the Act, 2008 or the Rules made thereunder justifies such a classification. If the land as on

¶113

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 13 :

¶114

date is in the nature of " പ�രയ�ട� ”, the respondents are

¶115

bound to describe the land as such, in Revenue records.

¶116

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are

¶117

disposed of with the following orders/directions:

¶118

(i) Exts.P3, P6 and P10 in W.P.(C) No.9599 of 2022 and Exts.P3 and P7 in W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 are set aside.

¶119

(ii) Competent among the

¶120

respondents are directed to refund the fees levied from the petitioners, within a period of two months.

¶121

(iii) The 5^th respondent in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 of 2022 and 12358 of 2022 is directed to classify the land of the petitioners as garden land / dry land / purayidam, as the case may be, appropriately in the Basic Tax Register.

¶122

Sd/-

¶123

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶124

aks/14.11.2022

¶125

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶126

: 14 :

¶127

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9599/2022

¶128

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶129

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF	LAND	TAX RECEIPT
	NO.KL03010108403/	2021	DATED 03.11.21
	WITH RESPECT TO FROM ADOOR VILLAG	THE E OFF	PROPERTY ISSUED ICE
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF	THE	RECEIPT DATED
	04.03.2020 FOR SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT	FORM PETIT	6 APPLICATION IONER BEFORE 4TH
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF 11.08.2020	THE BEAR	LETTER DATED ING FILE
	NO.1904/2020/B6 RESPONDENT	ISSUE	D BY THE 4TH
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.GO(P) NO.47/20	NOTI 20/TA	FICATION BEARING XES, FIXING THE
	FAIR VALUE FOR NO.358/3 IN ADOOR	PROP VILL	ERTY IN SURVEY AGE
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF	THE	APPEAL DATED
	22.10.2020 SUBMIT BEFORE THE 3RD RE	TED B SPOND	Y THE PETITIONER ENT
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF 29.01.2021 ISSU EXHIBIT P5 APPEAL	THE ED	ORDER DATED CONSEQUENT TO
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF 18.02.2021	THE	CHALLAN DATED
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 29.03.2021 SUBM RESPONDENT	REPR ITTED	ESENTATION DATED BEFORE 2ND
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF 12.05.2021 ISSUE LAND REVENUE COMM	COMMU D ON ISSIO	NICATION DATED BEHALF OF THE NER
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF	THE	ORDER DATED
	20.04;2021 ISSU RESPONDENT	ED	BY THE 4TH

¶130

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶131

: 15 :

¶132

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12358/2022

¶133

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶134

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF	LAND	TAX R	ECEIPT
	NO.KL03010108548/	2021	DATED 10	/11/21
	WITH RESPECT TO FROM ADOOR VILLAG	THE E OFFI	PROPERTY CE.	ISSUED
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF	THE	RECEIPT	DATED
	04/03/2020 FOR ' SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.	FORM 1ST PE	6' APPLI TITIONER	CATION BEFORE
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF 11/08/2020	THE BEAR	LETTER ING	DATED FILE
	NO.1905/2020/B6 RESPONDENT.	ISSUED	BY THE	4TH
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 29/03/2021 SUBM RESPONDENT.	REPRE ITTED	SENTATION BEFORE	DATED 2ND
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF	COMMU	NICATION	DATED
	03/06/2021 ISSUE LAND REVENUE COMM	D ON ISSION	BEHALF O ER.	F THE
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF	THE	CHALLEN	DATED
	22/02/2021 FOR RS.59,173/-.	AN	AMOUNT	OF
Exhibit P6A	TRUE COPY OF	THE	CHALLAN	DATED
	22/02/2021 FOR RS.3,30,000/-	AN	AMOUNT	OF
Exhibit P7	COPY OF THE ORD ISSUED BY THE 4TH	ER D RESPO	ATED 07/0 NDENT.	6/2021
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRE	SENTATION	DATED
	13/01/2022 SUBM PETITIONER BEFORE	ITTED THE 4	BY THE TH RESPOND	1ST ENT.

¶135

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶136

: 16 :

¶137

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23354/2022

¶138

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶139

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE RDO/TVM/3888/20211 DATED 15.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN RECEIPT NO.KL01356084220 2122M DATED 13.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE SUB TREASURY, KUDAPPANAKUNNU Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 3888/2021 DATED 11.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD

¶140

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶141

: 17 :

¶142

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27663/2022

¶143

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶144

Exhibit P1	TRUE OF S	COPY OF THE RO AYYANTHOLE	DOCUMENT NO. 2092/86
Exhibit P2	THE	TRUE COPY OF	THE BUILDING PERMIT
	DATE PANC	D 23-7-1986 I HAYATH	SSUED BY AYYANTHOLE
Exhibit P3	THE DATE PANC	TRUE COPY OF D 29-7-1997 I HAYATH	THE BUILDING PERMIT SSUED BY AYYANTHOLE
Exhibit P4	THE THE CORP	TRUE COPY OF ASSISTANT ORATION DATED	THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ENGINEER, THRISSUR 4-1-2020
Exhibit P5	THE 7-20 ENGI	TRUE COPY OF 20 ISSUED NEER THRISSUR	THE NOTICE DATED 23- BY THE ASSISTANT CORPORATION
Exhibit P6	THE 2020 339/	TRUE COPY OF T IN I.A.635/ 2020	HE ORDER DATED 25-8- 2020 IN APPEAL NO.
Exhibit P7	THE APPL PETI DATE	TRUE COPY ICATION SU TIONER BEFORE D 13-08-2020	OF THE FORM 6 BMITTED BY THE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	THE THE	TRUE COPY OF 4TH RESPONDENT	THE ORDER PASSED BY DATED 24-6- 2021
Exhibit P9	TRUE 339/ LOCA DATE	COPY OF THE 2020 ON THE F L SELF GOV D 6-8-2021	ORDER IN APPEAL NO. ILE OF TRIBUNAL FOR ERNMENT INSTITUTION
Exhibit P10	THE 2021	TRUE COPY OF T ISSUED BY THE	HE NOTICE DATED 2-9- 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11	TRUE 2021	COPY OF THE	CHALLAN DATED 20-9-
Exhibit P12	TRUE 4TH	COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DAT	ORDER PASSED BY THE ED 21-10-2021
Exhibit P13	THE (REV	TRUE COPY OF ENUE) DATED 25	THE G.O.NO 1166/2021 .02.2021
Exhibit P14	THE P1/1	TRUE COPY O 17/2021 (REVEN	F THE CIRCULAR NO UE) DATED 23.07.2021

¶145

W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases

¶146

: 18 :

¶147

Exhibit P15	TRUE (REV	COPY ENUE)	OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 313/2021 DATED 10-12- 2021
Exhibit P16	TRUE BEFO 2021	COPY RE THE	OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14-12-
Exhibit P17	THE ADDR 12-2	TRUE ESSED -2022	COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER DATED
Exhibit P18	THE ISSU 3-20	TRUE ED BY 22	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19-
Exhibit P19	THE BEFO 2022	TRUE RE THE	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION CHIEF MINISTER DATED 10-4-
Exhibit P20	TRUE	COP	Y OF THE COMMUNICATION
	OBTA OFFI	INED CE DAT	FROM THE CHIEF MINISTER'S ED 20-4-2022
Exhibit P21	TRUE 2ND	COPY RESPON	OF THE REMINDER BEFORE THE DENT DATED 13-6- 2022

V.G.Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G.Jose 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aneesh.v Vs the Panavally Grama Panchayat

Rameshan Manthampeth Puthiyapurayil Vs the State of Kerala

Rajan George Vs State of Kerala

V.G.Jose Vs State of Kerala

Tomy C Vadayil Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Pramodan a. Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation