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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For the Respondents: SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR, SHRI.ASIF

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.

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