IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2221 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED FAZAL K.M., LATE K.M.MOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 13/712, MAXWIN BUILDINGS, KOCHANGADY, THOPPUMPADY P.O., THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOCHI. 3. R.D.O., KOCHI. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 2221 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 proceedings of the 4th respondent, whereby the ground rent is stated as enhanced nearly 'thousand times'; that too with retrospective effect and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the premises were originally let out to one Abdul Seit for business purpose, stipulating the lease rent. It is borne out by Ext.P1 proceedings passed by the 4th respondent that the physical possession of the premises at the hands of the petitioner is very much admitted, even by the 4th respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that the 2nd respondent had issued a notice way back in January, 2007 to the petitioner as well as the original allottee, cancelling the lease hold arrangement. The submission made in this regard is vehemently opposed by the petitioner, stating that no such notice whatsoever was ever served to the petitioner at any point of time. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner is remitting necessary taxes with effect from 1990 onwards and that the possession of the premises at the WP(C) No.2221/2010 2 hands of the petitioner is very much known to the 4th respondent, who issued Ext.P1 without giving opportunity of hearing, which hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. In view of the admitted possession as put forth the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that before passing Ext.P1, no notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner, the matter requires to be reconsidered after giving an opportunity of hearing. In the said circumstance, Ext.P1 is set aside and the 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; which exercise shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that till such appropriate orders are passed afresh, all further coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc