IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24672 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.V.VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 54 YEARS, ERATTUPETTA VENNAT, ARUMITHARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 122. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO, SMT.N.SHOBHA, SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, MEENACHIL P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 575. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 24672 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that he is an old encroacher in the puramboke land in Survey No.48/4 of Erattupetta village. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment in O.P.No.2069/1998, the second respondent issued Ext.P1 order dated 02-04-1998, permitting the petitioner to operate a STD booth in 6 sq.metre of land at one of the extreme corner of the puramboke land in survey No.48/4 of Erattupetta village. Village Officer identified the land, demarcated and handed over the same to the petitioner on lease. On that basis, he set up the STD booth and was earning his livelihood. While so, referring to Ext.P4 circular issued by the first respondent on 29-08-2009, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P2, stating that the occupation of the petitioner is impermissible and called upon the petitioner to vacate the land. Thereupon, he submitted Ext.P3 representation to the Tahsildar praying WPC.24672/10 : 2 : for recalling Ext.P2. Response was not forthcoming and, therefore, this writ petition was filed. 2. In the meantime, petitioner also submitted Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent requesting to permit him to continue the occupation of the land in question. 3. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P2 is issued mainly on the strength of Ext.P4. Counsel contends that Ext.P4 is dated 9-08-2009, which is long after the lease in question was granted to the petitioner, and according to the learned counsel, Ext.P4 deals with future assignments and that it will not affect occupations permitted or leases granted prior thereto. 4. In my view, prima facie, counsel seems to be justified in his submission. However, since the Government is the authority which has issued Ext.P4, it is for the Government to issue any clarification to Ext.P4, considering the peculiarities of the facts involved. 5. Taking into account the above and also bearing in WPC.24672/10 : 3 : mind the pendency of Ext.P5 before the first respondent, it is directed that the first respondent shall consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will be kept in abeyance. 6. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before respondents 1 and 3 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks