IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34435 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SR.AGNUS,THE PRINCIPAL,CARMEL ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,THAKAZHY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA. 2. SR.JEESA MARIA,THE MANAGER, CARMEL CONVENT,THAKAZHY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM), SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR, SRI.PRASANTH M.P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,KUTTANAD,ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA. 6. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34435 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P5, a notice issued by the 4th respondent alleging that the petitioners have converted land in violation of the provisions contained in Act 28 of 2008 and ordering that if land is not restored to its original position, prosecution will be launched against them. Apart from contending that the allegations in Ext.P5 are incorrect, petitioners have invited my attention to Ext.P2, a report dated 25/4/2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer himself, which according to the petitioners prove that the position is contrary to what is alleged in Ext.P5. 2. Irrespective of the contentions raised by the petitioners on the merits of the allegations, I feel, having regard to the fact that Ext.P5 was issued without any prior notice to the petitioners, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 cannot be continued. 3. Therefore, I direct that Ext.P5 be treated as a notice calling upon the petitioners to file their objections and that once objections are filed in response to Ext.P5, the 4th respondent shall WPC No. 34435/10 :2 : hear the petitioners and pass orders in the matter. It is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to file objections to Ext.P5 within two weeks from today, in which event, notice will be issued and the petitioners will be heard and orders will be passed in the manner as directed. Needless to say that since Ext.P5 is directed to be treated as only a notice, no coercive action based on Ext.P5 can be continued until the proceedings are finalised as above. 4. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp