IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13312 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SOSAMMA, W/O.LATE CHACKO, AGED 77, PUTHUPPADIYIL, PERUMBAVOOR, KOCHI-682507. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR-682507. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.T.B.HOOD. R2 BY ADV.SHRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.13312 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, by which the petitioner is directed to remove the unauthorised encroachment with respect to the property lying in block No.84, Survey No.60. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as evident by Ext.P1, the property is belonging to the petitioner which is lying in Survey Nos.39 and 41 and not in Survey No.60. According to the learned counsel, on the strength of Ext.P2 notice, there is every possibility of further action and if the same is allowed, it will adversely affect the interest of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that against Ext.P2, the petitioner had already preferred Ext.P3 reply and the same has not been considered so far. 2. On a consideration of Exts.P1 and P2, it can be seen that the petitioner had paid the property tax as per Ext.P1 covered by the property that lying in Sy.Nos.39 & 41 of Perumbavoor Village and the total extent will come about 1.94 ares. But the property mentioned in Ext.P2 is lying in Sy.No.60 of block No.84. So there is substantial clerical difference regarding the property in question. It appears that before issuing Ext.P2 notice, no proper notice was issued to the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that W.P.(C) No. 13312 of 2011 -2- after Ext.P3 reply, the petitioner was not heard and no orders are issued, at least considering the facts brought to the notice of the respondent regarding the contradiction with respect to the property that mentioned in Ext.P2 and the property that in possession and ownership of the petitioner. Under the above circumstances, according to me, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondent to dispose Ext.P3 reply given by the petitioner, in pursuance to Ext.P2 notice, and after hearing the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 reply filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is directed to maintain status-quo, till passing an order on Ext.P3 reply, as directed above. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE krj