IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MURALEEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges rejection of form-5 application. (Para 2) |
| 2. acknowledgment of arguments from legal counsel. (Para 3) |
| 3. court highlights failures in statutory compliance by the authorised officer. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records relating to Ext.P2 order of the 4th respondent and to quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ;
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass fresh orders on the Ext.P1 FORM-5 request of the petitioner in the interest of justice;
iii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.
iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 4th respondent rejecting Ext.P1 Form–5 application submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petiti
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.