Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SIKANDARALI – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners raise concerns about property classification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal counsel arguments presented. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's evaluation of statutory rights. (Para 4) |
| 4. court directs specific actions and compliance. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that Exhibit P7 passed by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, to the extent it holds that the properties in Survey No. 67/9 are included in the Data Bank.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext P5 & P6 Form No.6 applications filed by the petitioners 1 & 2.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the properties owned and possessed by the petitioners in Survey No. 67/9 of Ottapalam-II Village, Ottapalam Taluk is not included in the data bank.
iv. Issue a further direction commanding the 1st respondent to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue records, changing the classification of the petitioners’
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
