IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31191 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MUSTAFA, S/O.ABDULLA KUNHI, AGED 70 YEARS, MUNFANAS, KURUVA ROAD, POST THAYYIL, KANNUR. 2. R.NOORJAHAN, W/O.MUSTAFA, MUNFANAS, KURUVA ROAD, POST THAYYIL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (L.A.) KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 34104 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).NOs. 31191 & 34104 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader submits that since the invocation of the emergency provisions under Section 17 (4) and the dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A in these two cases were not the basis of order passed by competent authority - Land Revenue Commissioner, action is being taken for withdrawing the notification so that fresh proceedings can be initiated on the basis of order to be passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. In fact Sri.Basant Balaji sought for two day's time for getting written instructions. But he submitted that the Land Revenue Commissioner by letter dated 19-11-2008 informed him that the combined impugned notifications in these cases under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) are not preceded by any order by the Land Revenue Commissioner dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A. That letter is also placed before me. I am sure that in the light of the facts stated in the Land Revenue Commissioner's letter, the respondents will have to withdraw from the WPC.Nos. 31191 & 34104 of 2008 2 impugned notifications and initiate proceedings afresh. It is seen that representations submitted by the petitioners are pending before the District Collector. Both these writ petitions are disposed of issuing the following directions; The respondents are directed to withdraw from the notifications which are impugned in these cases on the reason that they are not preceded by order of the Land Revenue Commissioner dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A. The grounds raised in both these writ petitions are reserved to be considered if and when it becomes necessary for the petitioners to challenge the fresh notification which may be issued by the District Collector. It is made clear that the grounds raised have not been examined by this court. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.Nos. 31191 & 34104 of 2008 2