Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNJUKUTTAN @ KARAPPAN, S/O RAMAN versus SAKUNTHALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KUNJUKUTTAN @ KARAPPAN, S/O RAMAN v. SAKUNTHALA - WA No. 1074 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9589 (6 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1074 of 2007()

1. KUNJUKUTTAN @ KARAPPAN, S/O RAMAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SAKUNTHALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :06/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

W.A. No.1074 of 2007

Dated, this the 6th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J. Challenging the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17400 of 2006 dated 26th February, 2007, the third respondent in the writ petition has filed this writ appeal.

2. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has stated as under:

"In view of the materials on record, after hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the third respondent, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the possession certificate will be issued to the petitioner without prejudice to the contentions between the parties before the civil court."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in view of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner in the writ petition will be in a position to cut and remove the trees standing on the land and that may change the characteristics of the land itself. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge should not have directed the authorities to give possession certificate to the petitioner in the writ petition.

4. The learned Judge while directing the authorities to give possession certificate to the petitioner has reserved liberties to agitate their contentions in a suit that is pending before the civil court. The right so reserved will take care of the imaginary grievance of the appellant. In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever which would call for our W.A.No.1074/2007 2 interference in this appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN)

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.