Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY versus K.G.KURUVILLA,POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY v. K.G.KURUVILLA,POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - WA No. 841 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 6916 (2 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 841 of 2007()

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Petitioner

2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE,PALAKKAD.

3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,WALAYAR.

Vs

1. K.G.KURUVILLA,POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

For Respondent :SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :02/04/2007

O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag.C.J. &

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

W.A.No.841 of 2007

Dated, this the 2nd day of April, 2007



JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel on either side.

2. we find it unnecessary to examine the various contentions raised before us since the matter is already seized before the District Court, Palakkad in C.M.A.No.63 of 2006. The writ petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Judge, Palakkad to consider and dispose of C.M.A.No.63 of 2006 and also for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 and their subordinate officers not to obstruct the agricultural operations and the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the area identified as Zone I of the property by this Court in M.F.A.No.610 if 2003 and the buildings situated within the property.

3. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge could have disposed of the writ petition either directing the District Judge to pass appropriate orders on the interim application preferred by the respondent or to dispose of the C.M.A. itself at W.A.No.841/2007 2 the earliest, rather than examining the issues under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of this writ appeal with a direction to the District Judge, Palakkad to dispose of C.M.A.No.63 of 2006 at the earliest with a further direction to dispose of the interim application at the earliest, at any rate on or before 13.4.2007. We make it clear that the respondent if so advised may make an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the details of the agricultural operations which he claims to have effected in the property in question and seek appropriate orders in accordance with law before the court below. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag.CHIEF JUSTICE. M.N.KRISHNAN,

JUDGE.

vns


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.