Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF, VARIKADAN HOUSE versus THE TAHSILDAR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF, VARIKADAN HOUSE v. THE TAHSILDAR - WP(C) No. 23392 of 2007(I) [2007] RD-KL 14618 (31 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23392 of 2007(I)

1. V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF, VARIKADAN HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE TAHSILDAR,
... Respondent

2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, PED SECTION,

4. NAUSHAD, S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED,

5. NISHAD, -DO-

6. ANSHAD, -DO-

For Petitioner :SRI.P.ALI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :31/07/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN,J


================
W.P.(C).No.23392 of 2007
======================

Dated this the 31st day of July 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner complains that respondents 4 to 6 have blocked the drainage in a Puramboke land which is unauthorizedly occupied by respondents 4 to 6 as a result of which there is water-logging in the petitioner's properties. He also complains that because of the poultry farm conducted by respondents 4 to 6 in the puramboke land there is public nuisance also. Petitioner filed a complaint in this regard before the third respondent by Ext.P6. The petitioner has been informed that the complaint has been forwarded to the first respondent for further action. The petitioner's complaint is that although Ext.P6 is dated 13.7.2007 the first respondent has not taken any action pursuant to Ext.P6 till date. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible. W.P.(C).No.23392/2007 I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to respondents 4 to 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the first respondent to take appropriate action in the matter as contemplated by law after hearing the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 6 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

dvs


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.