IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 29156 of 2006(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- T.T.P. SHAMEEMA, W/O.V.KUTTIALI, THAMARASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, MANANDAVADY, WAYANAD. 4. MANANDAVADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MANANDAVADY. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MANANDAVADY. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 29156 of 2006(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PATTAYAM DATED 7.2.1977. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 26.4.1985. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER FROM 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.29156/2006-U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4 th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings under the Land Conservancy Rules produced as Ext.P6. It is pointed out mainly that the same was issued without any valid reason and the alleged encroachment is also not correct. 2. According to the petitioner, the portion is 33 cms from one end to the other end. The counter affidavit shows that the place was inspected by the Revenue Officers, allegedly, based on certain complaints and thereafter, the proceedings were issued. 3. It appears that emergency provisions were invoked. The writ petition was pending here for the last five years. 4. Since the petitioner points out that the measurement was taken without any notice to him and the details were not also furnished to him, it is only proper that the authorities issue a notice to the petitioner, showing the details of encroachment if any. W.P.(C). No.29156/2006 -:2:- A fresh measurement will be taken in terms of the provisions of the Rules with notice to the petitioner if the authorities, at this distance of time, proposes to proceed with the matter. Therefore, Ext.P6 is quashed and if any fresh proceedings are thought of, adequate notice will be issued to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms