Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SHAJIMON E M – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for mandamus to direct action on application. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner satisfied with direction for timely consideration. (Para 2) |
| 3. court acknowledges hearing of both parties. (Para 3) |
| 4. directive issued for report submission and application consideration. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i)issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exhibit P4 application filed by the petitioner in Form 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2008; within such time which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant.
ii)dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language; and iii)grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P4 Form – 5 application within a time frame.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the lea
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
