Village Officer vs Skyline Builders And Developers ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20990 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
    WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                          RP NO. 199 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8050/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:

    1     VILLAGE OFFICER, PUZHATHI VILLAGE OFFICE,KANNUR-670
          005.

    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 001.

          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


RESPONDENTS:

    1     SKYLINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
          SKYLINE HOUSE,N.H.BYPASS,NEAR EMC HOSPITAL,
          VENNALA.P.O, COCHIN-682028,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
          DIRECTOR.

    2     ZONAL OFFICER,
          KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
          PUZHATHI ZONE,KAKKAD.P.O,
          KANNUR-670 002.

    3     EDACHERRY SKYLINE FLAT VIRUDHA JANAKEEYA COMMITTEE,
          EDACHERRY.P.O, PALLIKUNNU,KANNUR-670004,REPRESENTED BY
          ITS CONVENER,ALAKKAL JAYANDRAN,AGED 69
          YEARS,S/O.A.C.NARAYANAN.

    4     KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
          REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY,KANNUR.

    5     CHIEF TOWN PLANNER(VIGILANCE),
          DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY
          PLANNING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          BY ADV SMT.M.MEENA JOHN


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.10.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 199 OF 2021
                                      2


                                 ORDER

The short question arises in this review petition is whether an

application under Sec.3A of the Act 28 of 2008 can be treated as an

application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation

Order,1967, consequent upon abrogation of Sec.3A under the Act 28

of 2008. That has been answered in favour of the writ petitioners in

the writ petition itself. The State has come up with this review.

There is no scope for the reviewing as much as there was no

apparent error in the judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

PR