SAJEEV M.P v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- VIJU ABRAHAM
Outcome
Disposed of
With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. Admittedly the property is covered by KLU permission granted as early as on 12.06.2015. Therefore, I am of the view that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly…
Judgment
itself. It is aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached this Court. Petitioner submits that the issue raised by him is covered in his favour by the decision in LLMC Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma and another, 2015 (2) KLT 516 and various other judgments of this Court including Ext.P4 judgment. WP(C)No.141 of 2024 3
Operative part
Heard the learned Government Pleader also. Admittedly the property is covered by KLU permission granted as early as on 12.06.2015. Therefore, I am of the view that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly Ext.P3 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 3 rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in the light of the judgment referred to above. The 3rd respondent while reconsidering the matter will be free to verify the veracity of Ext.P1 and any conditions imposed therein. Petitioner will be free to submit notes of argument producing copies of the judgments relied on by him in support of his contentions and the 3rd respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the contentions taken by the petitioner in the argument notes and also the judgments relied on by him. Final orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. VIJU ABRAHAM Sd/- JUDGE WP(C)No.141 of 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 141/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit - P1 Exhibit - P2 Exhibit - P3 Exhibit - P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NUMBER, A9-7112/2014/K.DIS DATED 12.06.2015 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.11.2023 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT G2-9854/2023 DATED 18.11.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. G2- 9350/2023 DATED 13.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE FORM B AND FORM C (UNDER KERALA LAND TAX RULES) OF THE SAME DATE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN MARY ABRAHAM V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [2020 (4) KLT 448]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.