Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHAMPAD VAYANASALA AND GRANDHALAYAM versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHAMPAD VAYANASALA AND GRANDHALAYAM v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - WP(C) No. 220 of 2004(A) [2007] RD-KL 6695 (30 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 220 of 2004(A)

1. CHAMPAD VAYANASALA AND GRANDHALAYAM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER,

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

5. THE TAHSILDAR,

6. KHAIDER-MILLATH EDUVATIONAL AND

7. PANNIANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

For Respondent :SRI.P.M.PAREETH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :30/03/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.220 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 30th day of March 2007



JUDGMENT

The challenge is on Exts.P12 and P13 communications issued by the Government. The issue pertains to the assignment of Government land. It is the contention of the 6th respondent who is the beneficiary of the impugned orders that the Government invoked its power under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules in public interest and while exercising such power, the government is not bound to follow any of the rules. But it is seen from the counter affidavit itself that the 7th respondent/Grama Panchayat had submitted application for assignment of the said land and due steps in that regard had already been taken by the land assignment authorities. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that there was no objection from any quarters on the assignment of the land. When Rule 12 (1) notice in that regard was published, whether the assignment in favour of the 6th respondent has an overriding public interest over the public interest mooted by the Grama Panchayat is not W.P.(C)NO.220 OF 2004 2 clear from the impugned order. It is seen that no reference whatsoever is made by the Government on the steps already taken for assignment of the land to the land on the basis of the request of the Grama Panchayat while assigning the land to the 6th respondent under Rule 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Government should consider the matter afresh with notice to the Grama Panchayat, the petitioner and the 6th respondent. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P12 and P13 and also the assignment of the land made to the 6th respondent with a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner, 6th and 7th respondents and pass fresh orders in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

jes


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.