Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NOUSHAD, MEENATHETHIL PUTHENVEETTIL versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NOUSHAD, MEENATHETHIL PUTHENVEETTIL v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF - WP(C) No. 13273 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 7833 (13 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 13273 of 2007(E)

1. NOUSHAD, MEENATHETHIL PUTHENVEETTIL
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. SECTION OFFICER, KALLADA IRRIGATION

3. VILLAGE OFICE, VILLAGE OFFFICE,

4. SUBAIDA BEEVI, KALEKKATHAZHAYIL,

5. SHEEJA -DO-.

6. SHEEBA -DO-.

For Petitioner :SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :13/04/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN, J

W.P.(C)NO.13273 of 2007

Dated this the 13th day of April, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner submits that respondents 4 and 6 and their associates have trespassed into the canal puramboke property and have attempted to cut and remove the two teakwood trees standing thereon. Their attempt failed since the wood was too thick. Thereafter they set fire to the trees and the trees are standing in a dangerous position. The petitioner alleges that the intention of the respondents 4 to 6 is to construct a residential house in the puramboke property after cutting and removing the trees. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation before the second respondent complaining about the illegal attempt on the part of the respondents 4 to 6 to encroach into the puramboke property and to cut down the trees. For the present, the petitioner confines his prayer for a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P.(C)No. 13273/2007 :2: Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to respondents 4 to 6. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 and take such action under law as is found necessary in the circumstances as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

css / W.P.(C)No. 13273/2007 :3: W.P.(C)No. 13273/2007 :4:


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.