IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27865 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- G. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 75 YEARS, KUNNIL VEEDU, MEENAD, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-671 013. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM-691 013. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MEENAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 518. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED SHAH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 27865 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B16-50067/10(II) DATED 22/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27865 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a notice issued by the 3rd respondent under Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules on the basis that the property in Re.Sy.No.210/5 is a puramboke and that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the same. Petitioner says that the property in his possession is Re.Sy.No.210/13-3 and that he is not in possession of the property in Re.Sy.No.210/5. It is stated that if further action on Ext.P1 is taken, he will be evicted from his property. Therefore, he challenges Ext.P1. 2. Thus, according to the petitioner, it is the mistaken identity of the property, which led to Ext.P1 and it is contended that since Ext.P1 was issued without any prior notice to him, he could not bring his contentions in the matter to the notice of the 3rd respondent. It is on this allegation, the writ petition is filed. 3. Having regard to the nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner, I feel it is a case where the petitioner is ought to have given an opportunity of hearing in the matter before any coercive action is initiated. In that view of the matter, I direct WPC No. 27865/11 :2 : that, Ext.P1 will be treated as a notice issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why coercive action shall not be initiated against him as mentioned in Ext.P1. It is directed that, it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P1 within two weeks from today, and if such objections are filed, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same with notice to the petitioner and pass orders in the matter and on that basis alone, further action will be proceeded against. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp