Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
SUDHI RAJESH – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the legality of the approval process for a report. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel's arguments regarding the lack of an opportunity to contest. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. observations on the necessity of allowing objections. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. ruling permits objections to be filed and evaluated. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellants challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.18687/2020, primarily asserting that the imprimatur granted therein to Ext.R8(l) report of sketch and survey settled by the competent Authorities is improper and illegal because, they were not heard, nor were they given any opportunity at the time when it was so done.
2. Sri.R.Reji – learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that, as evident from the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has fully approved Ext.R8(l) and has only directed the Authorities to take follow-up action, after hearing his clients. He argued that this will now lead to a situation where the dispute between the parties has been prejudged, with his clients only in a position to object to the further action and not to the fundamental cause. He prayed that, theref
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
