SAREENA BEEGUM v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
father-in-law, for the last so many decades. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submits that while Ext.P3 appeal is pending consideration, respondents are taking steps to implement Ext.P2.
Heard the learned Government Pleader also. After hearing both side, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 W.P.(C). No. 7671 of 2024 : 3 : appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till proceedings on Ext.P3 appeal are finalised as directed above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. sm/ Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE W.P.(C). No. 7671 of 2024 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7671/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 L.C.3/23 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE TLK- VKL/1300/2023-K3 DATED 26/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE TLK- VKL/1300/2023-K3L.C.1/23 DATED 27/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/02/2024. THE TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT AND DELIVERY REPORT OF EXHIBIT P3.
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.