Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, MRS. M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
ANSON ANTONY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of benefits under rehabilitation package. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual consensus among parties regarding operations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. controversy over classification as commercial tenants. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. clarification on the applicability of benefits. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final disposition with mandated compliance timeframe. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellants, who are the State of Kerala and their functionaries, assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court only because of one observation, namely, that while a Rehabilitation Package is considered for the party respondents / writ petitioners in terms of the judgment, "they ought to be at least equated with commercial tenants mentioned in Clause 11 of Ext.P11 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package" (sic).
2. Smt.N.Sudhadevi - learned Special Government Pleader (LA), argued that, when the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to consider including the party respondents / writ petitioners in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package, its compliance could be done only after evaluating all relevant facts; but no condition, that they should be considered as “co
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
