Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUJEEB RAHIMAN, AGED 32 YEARS versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MUJEEB RAHIMAN, AGED 32 YEARS v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - WP(C) No. 17013 of 2007(A) [2007] RD-KL 11742 (2 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17013 of 2007(A)

1. MUJEEB RAHIMAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.JALEEL

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :02/07/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.17013 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with a complaint that the 3rd respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police is interfering with cultivation of his property, in so far as when he tried to prepare the land for 'banana' cultivation, the 3rd respondent has interdicted the petitioner from doing so on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

2. The learned Government pleader on instructions submits that the allegations are not correct and that the petitioner is making these allegations only because earlier he had assaulted the Village Officer consequent to which a criminal case has already been registered against him which is pending.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case has been registered against the Village Officer also. Whatever that be, it is not necessary to go into these allegations and counter allegations in this writ petition. The petitioner has already moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P1 application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Suffice it to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and W.P.(c)No.17013/07 2 pass orders on Ext.P1 expeditiously. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before passing final orders, the petitioner as well as others who may be affected may be given an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)No.17013/07 3


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.