Subash K.Baby, v. the District Collector
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court, in a dispute over land user change fees, held that the petitioner must raise objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It directed the officer to consider the petitioner's objections under the Georgekutty Thomas judgment guidelines within two months.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner permitted to place objections to the fee-fixation order on record before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022/ 26TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 18793 OF 2022
PETITIONER
SUBASH K.BABY, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. K.P. BABY, PUTHOOPPALLIL KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE, NIRANAM P.O, KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT , PIN 689 621.
BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V.
RESPONDENTS
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689 645.
- 2 THE R.D.O, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689 101.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the fee fixation order based on retrospective application of fair value amendment.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to seek further clarification from the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SUBASH K. BABY
- respondent
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA
- respondent
THE R.D.O, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA
- respondent
THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA
- respondent
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court