IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35085 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.JANARDHANAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, MANNANKUDI HOUSE, KANNIMANGALAM, NADUVATTOM P.O. BY ADVS. MR.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAMPUZHA. ADV.MR. M.A. ASIF – GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35085 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE AFORESAID 50 CENTS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LICENCE FROM MALAYATTOOR-NEELESWARAM PANCHAYAT FOR THE STONE CRUSHER UNIT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF PROVISIONAL SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FOR THE STONE CRUSHER UNIT ISSUED FROM THE TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CURRENT PANCHAYAT LICENCE FROM THE MALAYATTOOR-NEELESWARAM PANCHAYAT FOR THE STONE CRUSHER UNIT OF THE PETITIOENR FOR THE PERIOD FROM 17.3.2009 TO 31.3.2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF CONSENT ORDER OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VALID FROM 12.2.2008 UP TO 11.2.2011 FOR THE STONE CRUSHER UNIT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX RULES, 2005 FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE STONE CRUSHER UNIT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1-11524/98 IN FORM 'CC' UNDER RULE 13A PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 35085 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that by Ext.P8, the petitioner was directed to vacate the land in the possession of the petitioner, in proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules allegedly on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of Government land. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P8 order has been passed without any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He also submits that there is no justification for invoking the emergency clause. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader could not satisfy me that Ext.P8 order was passed, after notice and hearing to the petitioner. As such the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. Ext.P8 is liable to be quashed on that ground alone. However, if Ext.P8 is treated as a notice to show cause, Ext.P8 need not be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the W.P.(c)No.35085/09 2 following directions: The first respondent shall treat Ext.P8 as a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted from the land in question. The petitioner shall file his reply to Ext.P8 within two weeks. The first respondent shall thereafter post the matter for hearing with intimation to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of being heard. On the date of hearing, the petitioner shall be heard in the matter giving him opportunity to adduce evidence also. The first respondent shall thereafter pass a reasoned order considering all contentions of the petitioner which shall appear from the order itself and serve the same on the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be evicted from the property in question until after two weeks from the date of service of the order on the petitioner. I also note the contention of the learned Government Pleader that it was as per the direction of this Court that Ext.P8 order has been passed. But even if it is as per the direction of this Court, the first respondent cannot pass orders without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.35085/09 3 W.P.(c)No.35085/09 4