Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 To February 19, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 74-88]The Town Planner, District Town Planning Officer V Joseph Jacob & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 74Hameedali K.P. v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 75Midlaj @ Abu Mis'ab v. Union of India represented by National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 76Siji V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 77Rajaneesh Kumar R. & Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 78Femeena E. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 79State of Kerala rep. by Additional Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Dr. Louis J. Kattady & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 80Thaikkudam Bridge v. Hombale Films & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 81Manu Dev V XXX and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 82XXX v XXX 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 83Aleyamma Kuruvilla v. Mahatma Gandhi University 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 84Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Sreeraj Krishnan Potti M.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 85R v. R 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 86Kalukutty v. P.M. John & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 87Shanil v. State of Kerala & Anr. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 88Judgments/Orders This Week If Authorities Fail To Act Within Stipulated Time After Issuance Of Purchase Notice Under Town Planning Law, Land Owner Can Use Land For Any Purpose: Kerala High CourtCase Title: The Town Planner, District Town Planning Officer V Joseph Jacob & Others. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 74The Kerala High Court recently held that after a purchase notice has been issued by a land owner under Section 67(2) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, it is not mandatory for the person to wait for completion of variation of the Detailed Town Planning Scheme or Master Plan, to utilise the land. A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was considering the procedure to be followed after issuance of a purchase notice by a land owner under Section 67(2) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 in an appeal filed by the Town Planner of Kottayam district.Time To Stop Entertaining Writ Petitions Relating To Wakf Act, Parties Must First Approach Statutory Authorities: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Hameedali K.P. v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 75The Kerala High Court recently observed that time has come for it to stop entertaining writ petitions seeking directions relating to a wakf and to insist that the party should first approach the authorities under the Wakf Act. The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismissed a writ petition filed by a person who claimed to be the present hereditary Muthavalli of the Pannur Karandomthook Juma-Ath Palli Committee and challenged the order by which the Wakf Board had appointed a returning officer to conduct elections to the Juma-ath Committee.It observed, "Any dispute, question, or other matters whatsoever and whatever manner which arises relating to a wakf property can be decided by the wakf Tribunal. No doubt, alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for filing of the writ petition, but at the same time, it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, and when there is an efficacious alternate remedy, ordinarily, a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court. Entertaining a writ petition straight away without insisting that a party should avail alternate remedy is an over-liberal approach that is causing immense difficulties to the high court, adding to the huge arrears".Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of Men Accused Of Attempting To Travel To Syria For Joining ISIS, Says Not Safe To Release ThemCase Title: Midlaj @ Abu Mis'ab v. Union of India represented by National Investigation Agency Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 76The Kerala High Court has dismissed the applications seeking suspension of sentence of three persons, who were last year convicted for attempting to travel to Syria for allegedly joining the ISIS. The applicants had argued they have undergone more than five years in custody, and were even never released on bail during trial. The Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that the Apex Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) that the delay in taking up the main appeal coupled with the benefit conferred under Section 436A of Cr.P.C among other factors ought to be considered for releasing the applicants on bail, was only meant to be a guideline, and that each case pertaining to a bail application had to be decided on its own merits."Here is a case where the applicants/appellants acted against the interest of the nation as they wanted to wage war against Syria, an Asiatic power at peace with the Government of India. So, even if the applicants/appellants have undergone major portion of the sentence imposed on them, it is not safe to release them...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 To February 19, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags