IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34990 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SABU VARGHESE,@ SABU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT EATTICKAL HOUSE, PANNIYAR ESTATE. P.O, CHINNAKKANAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (R) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA,IDUKKI. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM, DEVIKULAM.P.O, PIN-685 613. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34990 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P9 and P10. Ext.P9 is the proceedings of the 4th respondent Tahsildar and Ext.P10 is Form CC notice issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order was passed in pursuance to the directions of this Court in WP(C) No.14644/10 filed by one Sri.P.O.Thomas. It is contended that in the course of that enquiry, without any notice to the petitioner, the Tahsildar held that the petitioner is also in unauthorised occupation of 2.4282 hectares of land in Sy.No.230 of Chinnakkanal Village. It is stated that, it was on that basis that, without any notice to him Form CC notice was also issued to him. Therefore, basically what is contended is that the proceedings are without notice to the petitioner and hence as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice, these cannot be implemented. 3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. He accepts the contention that notice was not WPC No. 34990/10 :2 : issued to the petitioner and that he was not heard by the 4th respondent. If that be so, necessarily if the respondent wants to proceed against the petitioner, it can only be after issuing notice and hearing to him. In that view of the matter, I hold that Ext.P9 shall not be implemented against the petitioner and I also quash Ext.P10 notice. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (1) That if the respondents have a case that the occupation of the petitioner of the land mentioned in Ext.P10 is illegal, it will be open to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioner by issuing notice to him and hearing him. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp