IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22873 of 2005(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CHIDAMBARAN NADAR, 256/X, VANDIPERIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, MIDLAND RUBBER & PRODUCE COMPANY LIMITED, VANDIPERIYAR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM. R1 BY SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SMT.PRIYA MAHESH, R2 BY GOV.T PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22873/2005-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VANDIPERIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH FOR THE YEAR 1988-89 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VANDIPERIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 27/06/2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/07/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.22873 Of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exhibit P4 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959. 2. As per the order, the petitioner is found to be under unauthorised occupation of line room NO.VP-318 of Vandiperiyar Panchayat which now bears No.X/256, Arnakkal Estate, Deepdene Division, Vandiperiyar. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the building is in his occupation after the demise of his father. The family has been residing there for the past more than 50 years. It was constructed by his father in the late 1940s and therefore they have been enjoying the property as owners. It is not part of the property of the 1st respondent. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was granted power supply to the building also. W.P.(C)No.22873/05 -2- 4. The case of the petitioner as evident from Exhibit P3 is that they are paying the building tax, etc. and therefore the petition submitted by the Management to evict the petitioner cannot be sustained. 5. A reading of Exhibit P4 shows that the question whether the petitioner has got an independent right of ownership and possession over the building has not been examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though Exhibit P3 objection along with documents were directly submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer, they were not accepted and therefore the petitioner had to forward it through registered post. 6. Evidently, if the petitioner claims independent proprietory right and possession adverse to that of the claim of the 1st respondent, it is a matter for proper consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Only if the 1st respondent proves that the property is exclusively owned by them along with the building and forming part of the Estate, any direction can be ordered under the relevant Act and the Rules. Therefore, Exhibit P4 is quashed. The matter will be reconsidered with opportunity to the W.P.(C)No.22873/05 -3- petitioner and the 1st respondent to produce all oral and documentary evidences. Appropriate final orders will be passed within a period of five months. Till then, the interim order passed by this Court will continue. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge