IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5074 of 2009(D) PETITIONER(S): M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDOM ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - LEGAL, M.V.H. MENON. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VANAPRIYA FOREST COMPLEX, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR - 680 005. 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY 5. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY. 6. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA, P.O. PADY, THRISSUR. BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENER FOR R1-6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 5074 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 order by which three leases of Government land issued in favour of the petitioner have been cancelled and an area of 4896.65 acres of rubber plantation of Moopli Valley Estate in Varandarappilly, Thrissur District has been directed to be resumed by the Government of Kerala. The learned Additional Advocate General raises a preliminary objection to the effect that in view of the disputed facts involved, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit in the matter. It is pointed out that in respect of the same estate, regarding recovery of certain amounts by way of lease rent, the petitioner had, in fact, filed a suit, viz. O.P.No. 45/2008 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, which is pending, in which interim orders had also been passed. 2. After hearing both sides, I am also of opinion that the proper remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner raises an apprehension that since such suit can be filed only after issue of Section 80 notice to the Government, by that time the impugned orders would be implemented. However, Section 80(2) itself provides for waiver of notice in appropriate cases where urgent interim orders are necessary. I am of opinion that this is a fit case where the civil court should waive notice under Section 80 by virtue of powers conferred on it under Section 80(2). In the above circumstances, the petitioner may file a suit in the matter invoking Section 80(2), in which case the civil court shall exercise powers vested in it under Section 80(2) in accordance with the above observation. To enable the petitioner to file a suit and seek W.P.C. No. 5074/2009. -: 2 :- interim orders in that suit, I direct that implementation of Ext. P1 shall be kept in abeyance for three weeks. However, I make is abundantly clear that I have not considered any aspect of the case on merits and it is for the civil court to consider every aspect of the case, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.