IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21428 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NOUSHAD, AGED 30, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PALLIKAVAL, MUDICKAL.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (NH), SECTION, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROAD SECTION, PERUMBAVOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 21428 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 notice issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act by which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the property in the possession of the petitioner, mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, Ext.P9 has been issued without prior notice or hearing to the petitioner which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that admittedly, the petitioner has purchased kuthakappattam lands. He also points out that the petitioner has no case that the kuthakapattam lands were purchased with the permission from the previous Government. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has no manner of title over th property since he is occupying Government land unauthorisedly. He would also submit that the property was earlier measured in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was satisfied that the petitioner is liable to vacate the property in question. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.(C).No. 21428 OF 2008 2 4. Whatever be the merits of the contention of either parties, proceedings under the Kerala Land conservancy Act could not have been completed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that Ext.P9 has been issued with prior notice and hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P9 has been issued violating the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. However, if Ext.P9 is considered as show cause notice, it may not be necessary to quash the same. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: Ext.P9 would be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner shall file his objections to the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, which shall include opportunity to adduce evidence also if the petitioner so wishes, and pass final orders pursuant thereto. Until after two weeks from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner, petitioner shall not be forcibly evicted from the property in question. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-