IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 34738 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ASSAINAR 33 YEARS,S/O.ABBAS, UJJAMPADY DELAMPADY, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DELAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DELAMPADY KASARGOD,REPRPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,KASARGOD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34738/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 5.11.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LAWYER NOTICE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 34738 OF 2007 I ==================== Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2, a notice requiring his eviction and demolition of the structure mentioned therein. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 is premature. This contention is raised on the ground of pendency of Exts. P1 and P7. Petitioner submits that Land Conservancy proceedings were initiated against his father. It is stated that the father contested the matter before the revisional authority and that by Ext.P1 order of the District Collector, the matter has been remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P1, proceedings are pending before the Tahsildar. 3. It is also his case that he had submitted Ext.P7 application for assignment of the land and that the application is also pending consideration of the Tahsildar. Petitioner contends that though the land in question has been vested in the 1st respondent Panchayat, still, it is the Tahsildar who is the authority designated under the Kerala Land WPC 34738 /07 :2 : Assignment Act for considering such application in the light of Section 3(2) of the said Act. 4. Thus, it is on the pendency of Exts. P1 and P7, petitioner is seeking to get Ext.P2 invalidated. 5. If as stated by the petitioner, proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1 and P7 are pending consideration of the Tahsildar, it is only proper that the same is given a finality before any coercive action is taken. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. i) That the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, who shall verify the correctness of the statement made about the pendency of Exts.P1 and P7, and if proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1 and P7 are pending, the Tahsildar shall take a final decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ii) It is also directed that the Panchayat shall be consulted on the assignability or otherwise of the land in question mentioned in Ext.P7 as required under Section 3(2) of the Land Assignment Act. iii) It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant WPC 34738 /07 :3 : to Ext.P2 will be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp