Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
KRISHNAKUMARI. T – Appellant
Versus
SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPALAM – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed against the rejection of land application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel arguments and procedural context for review. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis of previous rulings and termination of administrative action. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. mandatory reconsideration of application. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the passing of order Exhibit P10 by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and to declare that the property of the petitioner is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to remove the property of the petitioner from the land data bank and to issue a consequential notification, whereby allowing the Exhibit P4 application submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent in Form No.5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules ,2008 in the light of the dicta as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP - Vs- State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 591 ], in Muraleed
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
