Joy Mathew v. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's application to exclude 29.88 Ares of land from the Data Bank. The court directed the first respondent to consider the application afresh after examining relevant documents.
What did the court decide?
Ext.P14 is set aside. Direction to respondent to consider Ext.P9 application afresh within two months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 27248 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JOY MATHEW AGED 67 YEARS S/O. E.V. MATHAI, ERUMALA, ERUMALAPPADY, ERAMALLOOR P. O., KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691.
BY ADVS. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
- 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER R.D.O.OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM - MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA (P.O) - 686 673.
- 2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM – 686 691.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application to exclude land from the Data Bank was lawful given the reliance on specific documents.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Joy Mathew
- respondent
The Revenue Divisional Officer
- respondent
The Tahsildar (Land Records)
- respondent
The Village Officer
- respondent
The Local Level Monitoring Committee
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court