Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT versus UNION OF INDIA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT v. UNION OF INDIA - OP No. 33007 of 2001(S) [2006] RD-KL 2555 (5 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 33007 of 2001(S)

1. NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT
... Petitioner

Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.DAISY THAMPI

For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :05/12/2006

O R D E R

V.K.Bali,C.J. & S.Siri Jagan,J.

O.P.No.33007 of 2001-S

Dated, this the 5th day of December, 2006



JUDGMENT

V.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral) In this petition, which has been filed by way of public interest litigation by Nature Lover's Movement, which is stated to be a voluntary organisation registered under the Travancore-Cochin Scientific, Literary and Charitable Societies Act, the prayer is to set aside the order passed in O.A.No.145 of 1977 dated 10.12.1979 and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to resume the lands restored to respondents 5, 7 and 8 as per the decisions in O.A.No.145 of 1977 dated 10.12.1979, O.A.No.204/1977 dated 11.12.1981 and O.A.No.205/1977 dated 11.12.1981 of Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode.

2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, Smt.Susheela R.Bhatt, learned Special Government Pleader has handed over to us a notification dated 21st April, 2001, by virtue of which ownership and possession of the lands as per the details shown in the schedule to the notification in the districts of Palakkad, Kannur and Wayanad have been vested in the Government of Kerala free from all O.P.No.33007 of 2001 encumbrances and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person thereon shall stand extinguished from the date of commencement of the Ordiance, i.e. 2nd June, 2000. If, perhaps, the petitioner would have been aware of the notification, this petition ought not have been filed at all. Be that as it may, petitioner states that the petition be closed in view of notification referred to above, a copy of which, we order, be placed on records. We may mention that the notification referred to has been challenged by affected parties and the order passed by us today would have no effect on the said litigation. The Original Petition is closed. All pending interlocutory applications are dismissed. V.K.Bali Chief Justice S.Siri Jagan Judge vku/-


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.