Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. & Ors. vs State Of Kerala & Ors. on 28 August, 1998

M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 18 May, 2010

31. Here, in the facts of these cases, we must observe that for whatever reasons it is, tribals and the petitioners would say that non-tribals also have trespassed on the private lands, and for which cases have been charged. If the rule of law is to prevail, such misadventures, however, noble the cause might be, should not be tolerated by the State and its instrumentalities. There can be no doubt that display of any laxity or helplessness by the Authorities will only usher in more such and perhaps worse incidents of rank-lawlessness. We must also note a point of distinction between the facts of these cases and the facts of the case reported in M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 540). Therein, there were thousands of persons who had encroached upon the land in question, whereas WPC.34707/09 & CNN. CASES 57 in the facts of these cases, the number of encroachers is far fewer.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 22 - K Joseph - Full Document

Kumaran Sasidharan vs C.I. Of Police on 3 July, 2008

4. We are of the view that, the facts of this case have no comparison, whatsoever, with the facts of the case in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala. That was a case in which a large contingent of people raising a political slogan trespassed into the rubber estate of the petitioner therein and they were not having any semblance of right or interest over that property. W.P.(C) No.20074/2008 5 Having regard to the facts of this case, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the civil court to redress his grievance. Further, the police have no power to redress his grievance of violation of the interim injunction order passed by the civil court.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyamala Rajan vs The State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that revenue certificates such as location sketch, ROR, Possession Certificate, Genuinity Certificate etc., are not being issued in respect of property obtained by the petitioner under Ext.P1 (80.11 Ares in Survey Nos.338/5, 338/12 and 338/11 of Upputhara Village). According to the petitioner, the revenue authorities are not accepting the request of the petitioner for issuance of revenue certificates on account of Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings. It is submitted that following the decision of this Court in M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd and another v. State of Kerala and others; 2018 (2) KLT 369, this Court is allowed a batch of writ petitions (Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C)No.40002/2016 and connected cases), where the directions have been issued to the authorities to issue revenue certificates subject to the right of the State to initiate any proceedings for recovery of the land in question. Ext.P7 judgment is also stated to be in identical circumstances.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Panchami vs The State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that revenue certificates such as location sketch, ROR, Possession Certificate, Genuinity Certificate etc., are not being issued in respect of property obtained by the petitioner under Ext.P1 (0.1419 hectares in Survey No.338/31-58-59 of Upputhara Village). According to the petitioner, the revenue authorities are not accepting the request of the petitioner for issuance of revenue certificates on account of Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings. It is submitted that following the decision of this Court in M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd and another v. State of Kerala and others; 2018 (2) KLT 369, this Court is allowed a batch of writ petitions (Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C)No.40002/2016 and connected cases), where the directions have been issued to the authorities to issue revenue certificates subject to the right of the State to initiate any proceedings for recovery of the land in question. Ext.P7 judgment is also stated to be in identical circumstances.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Thomas V. J vs The State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that revenue certificates such as location sketch, ROR, Possession Certificate, Genuinity Certificate etc., are not being issued in respect of property obtained by the petitioner under Ext.P1 (2.2 Ares in Survey No.338/4-7 of Upputhara Village). According to the petitioner, the revenue authorities are not accepting the request of the petitioner for issuance of revenue certificates on account of Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings. It is submitted that following the decision of this Court in M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd and another v. State of Kerala and others; 2018 (2) KLT 369, this Court is allowed a batch of writ petitions (Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C)No.26798/2016 and connected cases), where the directions have been issued to the authorities to issue revenue certificates subject to the right of the State to initiate any proceedings for recovery of the land in question. Ext.P7 judgment is also stated to be in identical circumstances.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document
1