Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.J. KURIAKOSE versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.J. KURIAKOSE v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - OP No. 1502 of 2003(D) [2006] RD-KL 1317 (19 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 1502 of 2003(D)

1. K.J.KURIAKOSE, S/O.LATE SRI.K.K.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner

2. JAMES K.JOSEPH, S/O.LATE SRI.K.K.JOSEPH,

Vs

1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

3. SANTHOSH P.ANTONY,

4. BALU PHILIP, PALLATHU HOUSE,

5. KUNJAMMA SEBASTIAN, L.I.C. AGENT,

6. SEBASTIAN ALIAS DEVASSIA,

7. JOPPEN, MAREENA HOTEL,

8. THOMAS, VADAKARA,

9. NARAYANAN NAIR, RETIRED TAHSILDAR,

10. AJAYAN, VILLAGE ASSISTANT,

11. THOMAS, RETIRED SURVEYOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :19/10/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No. 1502 OF 2003

Dated this the 19th October, 2006



J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i) To call for the record relating to Exts.P1 to P6 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to constitute a special team and to conduct enquiry and investigation regarding the creation of bogus Pattas in Peermedu Taluk and Village and situated in Kuttikanam area including the Pattas and Sale Deed created and issued in respect of Ext.P1 to P4 documents and also in respect to the properties held by the petitioners. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to order enquiry on a district level basis about the bogus Pattayams created by the Respondents 3 to 11 and also all other bogus Pattayams created in Peermedu Taluk and to cancel the illegal Pattayams created in respect to the Petitioner's property and also to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to book criminal cases against respondents 3 to 11. It is seen that the petitioners have filed Exts.P5 and P6. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into those petitions and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law, with notice to the affected parties, expeditiously. In case any patta is issued in respect of the properties referred to in the petitions, the same shall be subject to the action thus taken by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ps 2

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.1502/2003

JUDGMENT

19th October, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.