Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

The State of Kerala vs Mathew Thomas

The State of Kerala vs Mathew Thomas

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2024
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1295663

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RP/617/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The State of Kerala

Respondent

Mathew Thomas

Excerpt

.....house, teekoy p.o., erattupettah, 4 somy thomas, aged 48 years, s/o.thomas, njallampuzha house, teekoy p.o., erattupettah, r.p.no.617/2020 2 5 teekoy grama panchayath, represented by its secretary, teekoy grama panchayath, kottayam, pin - 686 580. by adv.shri.thomaskutty m.a., sc, teekoy grama panchayat this review petition having been finally heard on 31.01.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following: r.p.no.617/2020 3orderthis review petition is filed by respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition. the writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein challenging the stop memo. this court noting that a permit has been issued, ordered that, by way of a stop memo, mining activity cannot be prevented.2. it is pointed out by the learned government pleaderthat the land in question is an exempted land under section 81 of the land reforms act and the land is now being used for non-exempted purposes. for that matter, this court need not review the judgment. if the land has been converted for non-exempted purposes, the revenue authorities can bring the matter to the attention of the land board for initiating ceiling proceedings. therefore, with liberty to the review petitioners to initiate the proceedings to include the land in the ceiling, if the land has been converted for the non-exempted purposes, the review petition is disposed of. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque, judge ln

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945 RP NO. 617 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2020 IN WP(C) No.4398/2020 ----------- REVIEW PETITIONERS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3 THE TAHSILDAR, LAND REFORMS, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 577. 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, TEEKOY, BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.VINITHA B. RESPONDENTS: 1 MATHEW THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, CHENGAZHASSERY HOUSE, TOOKOY P.O., ERATTUPETTAH, KOTTAYM-686 580. 2 PUNNOOS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KOTTUKAPPALLIL, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTAH, KOTTAYAM - 686 124. 3 GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, CHENGAZHASSERY HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O., ERATTUPETTAH, 4 SOMY THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, NJALLAMPUZHA HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O., ERATTUPETTAH, R.P.No.617/2020 2 5 TEEKOY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TEEKOY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 580. BY ADV.SHRI.THOMASKUTTY M.A., SC, TEEKOY GRAMA PANCHAYAT THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.No.617/2020 3

ORDER

This review petition is filed by respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein challenging the stop memo. This Court noting that a permit has been issued, ordered that, by way of a stop memo, mining activity cannot be prevented.

2. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader

that the land in question is an exempted land under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act and the land is now being used for non-exempted purposes. For that matter, this Court need not review the judgment. If the land has been converted for non-exempted purposes, the Revenue Authorities can bring the matter to the attention of the Land Board for initiating ceiling proceedings. Therefore, with liberty to the review petitioners to initiate the proceedings to include the land in the ceiling, if the land has been converted for the non-exempted purposes, the review petition is disposed of. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties The State of Kerala vs Mathew Thomas Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales