Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N.V.CHACKO, NEDUMBA PAMBAKKUDA VEEDU versus REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N.V.CHACKO, NEDUMBA PAMBAKKUDA VEEDU v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - WP(C) No. 13705 of 2006(F) [2007] RD-KL 9367 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 13705 of 2006(F)

1. N.V.CHACKO, NEDUMBA PAMBAKKUDA VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. VILLAGE OFFICER,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

4. ASSISTANT MANAGER,

5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.NAMBIAR

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. W.P.(C) Nos.13705/06 & 13594/07 Dated 4th June, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

Petitioner is one and the same in both the writ petitions. The former is filed praying for a direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to fill the water logged area of Oil Palm cultivated land before the onset of monsoon. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that steps taken by the petitioner for conversion of the wet land to garden land was in violation of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued 'Form E' notice dated 9.5.2006. It is also stated that the notice was duly served on the petitioner. Thus, the Revenue Divisional Officer is seized of the matter. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to go into the various contentions taken by the petitioner, including the contention that permit as such from the Revenue Divisional Officer is not necessary, since those are all matters for the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider while passing final orders. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.13705/06 is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of the case pending before him with regard WP(C) Nos.13705/06&13594/07 2 to the alleged unauthorised filling of wet land, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner and the party respondents will also be afforded an opportunity for hearing. Needless to say that the first respondent will advert to the contentions taken by the parties and pass a reasoned order.

2. The prayer in W.P.(C) No.13594/07 is for police protection for the conversion of water logged area. In view of the judgment in the former writ petition, it is not necessary to consider this writ petition on merits, since the writ petitioner can proceed with the activity, only if the same is duly permitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. We make it clear that in case the petitioner is given due sanction for the filling, and in case there is any obstruction, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the police, in which case, appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter will be taken by the police.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

tgs WP(C) Nos.13705/06&13594/07 3 KURIAN JOSEPH &

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ

L.A.A. NO. OF 2004

J U D G M E N T

Dated 4th June, 2007.


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.