IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RUBINA – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“(i) To issue a writ mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider the Exhibit-
P1 within a time period of two months, and (ii) To exempt the petitioner from producing translation of vernacular document produced herewith as Exhibits-P1, and (iii) To issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. “ [sic]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P1 application submitted in Form 7 under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 .
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. After hearing both sides, I think that prayer can be allowed.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext. P1 application to the 1st respondent/Authorised Officer, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
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.