AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 234 wordsT.R. Ravi, J
The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for removing his property from the Data Bank. The petitioner has produced Ext.P10, which is an order issued 8 days prior to Ext.P9 and relating to the adjacent property of the petitioner, wherein the 2nd respondent had ordered the properties to be removed from the Data Bank. The only difference in the reasoning is that the property regarding which Ext.P10 was issued had already a building there. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property had been converted prior to 2008 and there has been no proper consideration of the issue in Ext.P11. I find considerable force in the contention put forward by the petitioner.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for removal of his property from the Data Bank in accordance with law after calling for a report from the KSREC. The petitioner shall take necessary steps to obtain a report from the KSREC and forward the same to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall, if necessary, make physical verification in the presence of the petitioner. Necessary orders shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC report.