IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16593 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- CHAPPANGATHIL CHEKKUTTY HAJEE, S/O.MOHAMMED, CHAPPANGATHIL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, ULLANAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.16593 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent by which the petitioner was directed to vacate the land occupied by him referred to in Ext.P4 within thirty days from the date of service of the notice issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The petitioner submits although to Ext.P2 show cause notice the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 objections, Ext.P4 order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of Ext.P4 order. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Ext.P4 is a printed order wherein blank spaces have been filled up incorporating the name and address of the petitioner, details of the property etc. There is absolutely no consideration of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 in respect of the subject matter. I am of opinion that this is not the way the 2nd respondent should pass orders affecting the civil rights of the petitioner. W.P.(c)No.16593/08 2 Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to re-hear the matter on the basis of Ext.P3 objections filed by the petitioner, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence also in support of his case and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The fresh orders so passed shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to seek remedies, if the order to be passed is adverse to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.16593/08 3