M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD BRISTOW ROAD v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
P1, P2 and P6 on record and they are accordingly quashedand the writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
W.P.(C) No.738 of 20083look into the allegations of encroachment, as also the title over certainproperties including the properties of the company and the matter is beinglooked into, to ensure that the public interest is protected properly and that it isexpedient that the rubber trees are not felled without paying seignorage.7. Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any sustainable groundto continue Exts.P1, P2 and P6 on record and they are accordingly quashedand the writ petition is allowed. However it is further directed that if the State, if it so desires, may initiate any demand for seignorage and the petitionercompany shall pay the same under protest subject to its entitlement to seekredressal against such demand. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNANJUDGE vns
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: P1, P2 and P6 on record and they are accordingly quashedand the writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 — s. 103.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 30 May 2008. The bench was THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN.
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.