IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31704 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MADHU JOHN, S/O.P.M.JOHN, PAINUNTHARA HOUSE, K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ( REVENUE DEPT ), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAJAKUMARY, IDUKKI DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.31704 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exhibit P5 notice issued by the 2nd respondent Tahasildar, Udumbanchola requiring the petitioner to show cause why the land which is mentioned therein having an extent of 0.1619 hectares in Sy.No 4/10 and 4/12 of the Chinnakanal village should not be resumed. Petitioner has filed Exhibit P6 objections to Exhibit 5 notice inter alia contending that the petitioner has been in occupation of the land in question from the year 2005 onwards. Mutation of the land covered under Exhibit-P3 was effected in the name of petitioner and he has been paying basic tax. There were subsequent alienation by the petitioner asserting title to the property. What is now proposed is cancellation of the patta already issued. This is without jurisdiction, it is contended. The writ petition has been filed by the W.P ( C) No.31704 of 2008 2 petitioner on the apprehension that an order may be passed by the Tahasildar rejecting the objections and the same might be followed with emergent action for resuming possession and it might also involve co-ercive action against the property. 2. Objections on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tahasildar could be taken up by the Tahasildar. If that be so, I have no reason to suspect that the Tahasildar would not address the objection. I find substance in the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that co-coercive action immediately on service of an order on the petitioner might lead to irreparable injury. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P6 objections and hear the petitioner or their authorized representative and then pass a reasoned order pursuant to Exhibit P6. It is up to the Tahasildar to pass orders thereon. I make it clear that if such orders are adverse to the interests of the petitioner then enforcement of the same shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 15 days from the date of service of W.P ( C) No.31704 of 2008 3 the same to enable the petitioner to avail alternate remedy available to him or take such appropriate action as is warranted. All contentions raised by the petitioner including those relating to the vires of the statutory provisions are left open. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.31704 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.31704 of 2008 5 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.31704 of 2008 6 W.P ( C) No.31704 of 2008 7