IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The above writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioners under Rule 12(13) of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules .
2. The specific case of the petitioners is that the property is lying as dry land, and there are coconut trees more than 50 years old.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. After hearing both the parties, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the 2nd respondent/authorised officer to take a final decision on Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the 2nd respondent/authorised officer. Petitioners will be free to submit notes of argument, producing all the relevant documents in support of their contentions, which shall be duly considered by the 2nd respondent/authorised officer while taking a decision as directed above.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.