Loading...

Petchiammal vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Petchiammal vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29821 of 2010(C)


1. PETCHIAMMAL, D/O. GURUSWAMY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.RAMAR, S/O. SARGUNAM, AGED 55 YEARS

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT

3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.M.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :29/10/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 29821 OF 2010 (c)
                  =====================

           Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioners 1 and 2 claim that they are in possession of 4

cents and 3 cents of land respectively in Sy.No.912 of KDH Village

where according to them, they are residing with their families. It

is stated that by making Ext.P9 application to the 2nd respondent,

they sought assignment of the property to them in the light of

Ext.P8 Government Order. Orders on the application are not

passed and in the meantime, they expect coercive action to drive

them out of the property. It is with this grievance, the writ

petition is filed.

2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also on behalf

of the respondents.

3. If as stated by the petitioners, they have made

applications for assignment of properties, necessarily, it is a

matter for the 2nd respondent to consider.

4. Therefore, taking note of the case of the petitioners

that Ext.P9 application made by them is pending before the 2nd

respondent, without expressing anything on the merits of the

WPC No. 29821/10
:2 :

claim raised, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd

respondent to consider the said application in the light of Ext.P8.

Orders on Ext.P9 shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment

along with a copy of this writ petition. It is directed that until

orders are passed as above, status quo as on date in so far as the

land in possession of the petitioners shall be maintained.

Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with

a copy of this writ petition before respondents 2 and 3 for

compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information