IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2192 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SRI.BOBY CHERIYAN, KALLAZHUTHIL HOUSE, NEAR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHENGANNUR BR., THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR. 2. SRI.K.K.JOHN, KALLAZHUTHIL HOUSE, NEAR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHENGANNUR BR., THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR. 3. SRI.MOHAN DAS, MANCHERY HOUSE, NEAR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHENGANNUR BR., THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEYS, HARIPAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNUR. 4. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH, DANAMPADIKKAL HOUSE, THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.2192/2010-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are permanent residents in various items of properties having different extents of land near the State Bank of Travancore, Chengannur Branch, M.C.Road in Thittammel Muri, Chengannur Village and Taluk. There is a road in a puramboke land in Re-survey No.189/16 of Chengannur Village. It is the case of the petitioners that the same has got 4.3 metres width at the entrance near the M.C. Road and 6 metres width at the ending point near to the house of the petitioners herein. It is a well maintained road also. Ext.P1 is the Re-survey plan in respect of the field No.189 in Block No.8 of Chengannur Village. The allegation raised by the petitioners is that the fourth respondent who is the owner of the adjacent northern property has encroached into the puramboke road and the width of the road has been reduced, which compelled the petitioners to file a petition before the Government, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and before the Municipality concerned. Under instructions of the Minister for Revenue, the first respondent is examining the matter. It appears that the fourth respondent filed Ext.P3 representation before the District Collector on the basis W.P.(C). No.2192/2010 -:2:- of which the District Collector directed the second respondent to measure the property and to identify the puramboke portion. 2. The petitioners seek for an opportunity for hearing by the District Collector while considering the petition filed by the fourth respondent. They have filed Ext.P6 objection in the matter before the District Collector also. Therefore, the limited prayer made by the petitioners is that before taking a decision on Ext.P3 revision petition, the petitioners also will be heard by the District Collector. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before taking a decision on Ext.P3 as requested for in Ext.P6. The fourth respondent will also be heard in the matter. The petitioners will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment for compliance. It is made clear that I have not considered the merits of the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms