M.N.Balakrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 33089 Ker

Kerala High Court

M.N.Balakrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2024

                                             2024:KER:86467

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/23RD KARTHIKA, 1946

                  WP(C) NO. 14690 OF 2020

PETITIONERS:
    1     M.N.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
          AGED 60 YEARS
          SHANKERS HOUSE, PARAPILLIL LANE, THIRUVANKULAM.

    2    JAYASHANKAR BALAKRISHNAN,
         SHANKERS HOUSE, PARAPILLIL LANE, THIRUVANKULAM.

         BY ADVS.
         K.P.SANTHI
         SMT.TARA PREM
RESPONDENTS:
    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
         CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

    3    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         FORTKOCHI-682001.

    4    THE TAHSILDAR,
         KANAYANNUR TALUK, PARK AVENUE ROAD, KOCHI-682011.

    5    THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
         REPRESENTED BY CONVENER AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682305.


         SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 14.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P. (C) No.14690 of 2020
                                      2



                                                           2024:KER:86467
                                 P.M. MANOJ, J
                        -----------------------------------
                        W.P.(C) No.14690 of 2020
                  ----------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 14th day of November, 2024


                            JUDGMENT

The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the

denial of change of tenure in the Basic Tax Register by

rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner to

delete the entry from data bank. Thereafter, the petitioner

has preferred Form-5 application, even that has been

rejected on the same ground. No fresh order was passed in

Form-5 application. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred

an application for receiving additional documents as well as

amending the writ petition.

2. However, going by the pleadings, it appears that

fresh writ petition is the better way to consider the matter.

By realizing the said fact, the petitioner seeks to withdraw

the writ petition with liberty to file afresh.

Accordingly, the permission is granted and the writ

petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

Sd/-

P.M. MANOJ JUDGE

SSS