IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30013 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.P.RAHMATH, W/O.V.K.SHARAFUDEEN, SHARARA BUNGLOW, KAYYATH ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, PIN – 671 321. 2. ADDL. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALASSERY, PIN – 671 321. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, THALASSERY VILLAGE, THALASSERY, PIN – 671 321. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, PIN : 671 321. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30013 of 2010 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that she and her husband are owners of two plots of land having an extent of 4 Ares 5 sq. feets and 4 Ares 2 sq. meters respectively, comprised in R.S.Nos.139/2A & 2B of Vadaikkakom Desom, Thalassery Taluk in Kannur District. It is stated that in respect of the property, proceedings were initiated under the Land Conservancy Act and the 4th respondent passed Ext.P2 order dated 06/08/2010. By this order, the 4th respondent held that the petitioner has encroached into 48.45 sq. meters of Government property and on that basis, the petitioner was ordered to demolish the compound wall and vacate from the encroached portion. The petitioner submits that aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, she filed Ext.P4 revision before the District Collector. It is stated that the District Collector has heard the parties on 28/09/2010 and that orders are awaited. 2. Apprehension of the petitioner is that if the District WP(C) No.30013/2010 -2- Collector decides the issue against her, on account of personal animosity which the 4th respondent entertains, the 4th respondent is likely to order immediate demolition of the compound wall. Referring to Ext.P6, the petitioner submits that her son's wedding is scheduled to be held on 10/10/2010 and that in the meanwhile, if such an untoward incident happens, grave prejudice will be caused to her. 3. Although several allegations have been raised by the petitioner against the conduct of the 4th respondent, having regard to the fact that the 1st respondent is yet to pass orders on Ext.P4 revision filed by the petitioner, I do not think it necessary or proper for this Court to deal with those contentions, as otherwise, it might influence the decision making process of the 1st respondent. Therefore, I leave open all these contentions of the petitioner. 4. However, having regard to the fact that the wedding of the petitioner's son is scheduled to be held on 10/10/2010, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the order to be passed by the District Collector is adverse to her, and if the same is implemented in the meanwhile, prejudice will be WP(C) No.30013/2010 -3- caused to the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, I direct that while it will be open to the District Collector to pass orders on Ext.P4 revision pursuant to the hearing that is already held, the order shall not be implemented till 15/10/2010. This is only in the aforesaid circumstances and to enable the petitioner to pursue her remedies against the said order. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before respondents 1 & 4 for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg