IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
K.SUBAIDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“i) Call for all records leads to Exhibits P6, P9, and P13, and quash Exhibit P13 by issuing the Writ of Certiorari.
ii) Declare that the land covered by Ext.P1 and P2 is not a Nilam, and the petitioner is entitled to get the revenue records corrected iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order commanding the officials to change the nature of land covered by Ext.P1 and P2 in revenue records.
iv) Issue such other writ, direction or order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (SIC)
2. The petitioner submitted a Form – 6 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was rejected as per Ext.P7. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal and the same was also rejected as evident by Ext.P9. Thereafter, the Government also confirmed the same as per Ext.P13 order.
Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that, as per Ext
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.