IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32417 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VELLAKANNU, S/O.SANKARAPANDIAN, NAGAMALA. 2. NAGARAJ, S/O.SHANMUGHAM, PAPPATHICHOLA, CHINNAKANAL. 3. VINCENT, S/O.JOSEPH, NELLISSERY, CHOINNAKANAL. 4. MARIAMMA, W/O.ASEERVADON, SOORYANELLI, CHINNAKANAL. 5. ARUMUGOM, S/O.MUTHUKARUPPAN, SHANMUGHA VILASOM, SOORYANELLI. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMPANCHOLA, IDUKKI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANIL KUMAR D. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).32417/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners claim to be permanent settlers of Chinnakanal Village in Udumbanchola Taluk, and in possession of varying extents of land on the basis of Exts.P1 to P10. According to them, their predecessors in interest were also in occupation in such land. But in June-July, 2007, a special team was constituted to evict them from the land. On receipt of Ext.P11 notice and similar notices, they produced documents in support of their title and appeared before the third respondent with the copy of the documents. According to them, without a further hearing, they were served with Ext.P13 notice. They appeared before the second respondent, and submitted Ext.P14 representation. They were again asked to appear for a hearing. Said hearing was purportedly held on 31.10.2004. Though the petitioners were represented by an advocate practicing in Thodupuzha Bar, according to the petitioners, no further hearing took place and W.P.(C).32417/2008 2 thereafter, they came to know from Ext.P17, that pattas have been cancelled. Hence the writ petition. Copy of the order by which pattas issued in favour of the petitioners were cancelled, was produced as Ext.R2(a) and the writ petition was amended challenging Ext.R2 (a). 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader. 3. Counter affidavit filed by the second respondent affirms that the pattas claimed by the petitioners turn out to be bogus. Obviously this is a serious matter and therefore, an enquiry specifically on the said aspect, is required. But the notice which has been issued to the petitioners do not specifically refer to the said aspect. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent, the District Collector, to issue fresh notice to the petitioners, affirming whether the W.P.(C).32417/2008 3 pattas issued in favour of the petitioners are bogus. If all such pattas are alleged to be bogus then, said aspect must specifically find a place in the said notice and if so, facts as now stated in the counter affidavit will be considered by the petitioners as incorporated in the said notice. They shall be given an opportunity of proving that the pattas are not bogus and an enquiry must be conducted. In these circumstances, petitioners must be given an opportunity of being represented by an advocate and an order may be passed pursuant to the said notice, after due enquiry, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs