Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
P.A.ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of ownership under assigned lands and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' counterclaims regarding assignment compliance. (Para 4) |
| 3. the court's decision on alienation prohibition based on legal rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling on the writ petition and dismissal reasoning. (Para 7) |
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash Ext.P5 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;
(b) declare that the directions issued in Ext.P5 is contrary to Rule 8 of Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977 and against the dictum laid down in Ext.P7 judgment;
(c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 in the light of the dictum laid down in Ext.P7 judgment.”
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of a parcel of land having an extent of 0.4446 hectares in Resurvey No.213 P
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
