SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Ker) 594

M.RAMACHANDRAN
Gopi – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Vide L.A.A. No. 1386/93 dated 7.7.1994, by Ext. P6, the petitioner had been granted a patta in respect of 70 Ares (1.72.960 Acre) in the Udumbanchola Taluk. His claim is that he is in possession of the property ever thereafter.

2. At the time of the grant, the mandatory conditions as per the rules, had also been incorporated in the patta and condition No.1 was that the wild trees, specifically referred to in the schedule, fully belong and all trees which were there and might erupt are to be properly preserved by the assignee.

3. The petitioner points out that there were five trees so reserved. The petitioner wanted to cut and remove the trees after remitting the tree value. An application as Ext. P1 had been submitted by him in this regard. Reference was made to one Thumbegom and four Chadachi trees. The Village Officer, Konnathady, by Ext. P3 dated 8.11.2001 reported to the Tahsildar that there was a residential house in the property belonging to the petitioner as XI/320 and in the property there was a Thumbegom tree which was rotten and stunted and it was a danger to the house as also cultivations. He referred to the above as a reserved tree in the patta and also sho











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top