IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10343 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THRESSIAMMA LONAPPAN, W/O.LONAPPAN, PANTHALLUKKARAN HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-6. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, THRISSUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10343 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that she is the owner of 1.82 ares of property abutting the National Highway and situated in Sy.No.287 of Chiyyaran Village. Ext.P1 is the title deed and Ext.P2 is the tax receipt. It is contended by the petitioner that her husband received Ext.P3 notice from the Respondent alleging that he had encroached into the puramboke land to which he gave a reply denying the ownership over the property. Despite this, Ext.P4 notice was issued to him threatening to demolish the property, to which he and the petitioner, being the owner of the properties, attempted to submit Exts.P5 and P6 replies to the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent refused to accept the replies. It is also stated that on refusal to accept Exts. P5 and P6, petitioner have despatched their objections by registered post. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed apprehending that Ext.P4 will be given effect to. 2. From the facts as stated above, it is obvious that the petitioner claims ownership of the land in question and that she or her husband has not been heard by the respondents before issuing Ext.P4. In WPC No.10343/08 :2 : view of this, I feel ends of justice deserve that Ext.P4 has to be treated as a show cause notice and the objections of the petitioner and her husband should be considered and they should also be heard by the respondents before continuing further action. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that if Exts. P5 and P6 have been received by the respondents as stated above, that will be treated as objections to Ext.P4. The respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and her husband and after giving them an opportunity of hearing their objections, the respondent shall take a decision in this matter afresh. Until decision is taken as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp