Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
SREEJITH.P.R., SREEJA.P.R., REMANI RAJAN – Appellant
Versus
P.PRASAD, THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), THE TAHSILDAR, THE TALUK SURVEYOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the deputy collector's decision on grounds of procedural fairness. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding implications of ext.p10 and potential actions of respondents. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's examination of ext.p7 directives and implications for cases. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 4. right to appeal against administrative decisions does not negate parties' litigation rights. (Para 7 , 9) |
Devan Ramachandran , J.
The appellants challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.41878/2025, asserting that Ext.P10 communication of the Deputy Collector to the Tahsildar (Land Records) is improper, impermissible and contrary to the earlier judgment of this Court in WA No.1621/2024, namely Ext.P7.
2. Sri.Rajeev Koyickal – appearing for the appellants, argued that, as evident from Ext.P7 itself, even while the learned Division Bench of this Court allowed the survey of the property, it was clarified that it shall not be used for the purpose of the civil suits pending between the parties. He argued that ineluctably, therefore, the Deputy Collector ought to have heard both parties before Ext.P10 could have been issued; but alleged that he proceeded
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
