IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29175 of 2008(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M/S. RIVERSIDE PLANTATIONS - REPRESENTED BY PARTNER SEBASTIAN VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, PLANTER, RESIDING AT KIZHUKUNNU POST, KOTTAYAM. 2. MARIYAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 82 YEARS, FORMERLY PARTNER OF RIVERSIDE PLANTATIONS, MALAMPUZHA, RESIDING AT EDATHIL HOUSE, KANNADY, PULINCUNNO, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 3. M/S. HILL TOP PLANTATIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, ALEX JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, PLANTER, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. 4. M/S. DAM VIEW PLANTATIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER E.T.JOSEPH, AGED 84 YEARS, EDAYADIL HOUSE, KANNADY, PULINCUNNO, ALLEPPY DISTRICT. 5. ETHAMMA DOMINIC, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PARTNER, KOMBUTHOOKI ESTATE, MALAMPUZHA, RESIDING AT MUKKADA HOUSE, P.O. NALUNNAKKAL, VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM DT. 6. GEORGE DOMINIC, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, UNITED PLANTERS, MALAMPUZHA, RESIDING AT MUKKADA HOUSE, POST MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. RONI J MUKKADA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MUKKADA HOUSE, POST NALUNNAKKAL, VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. THRESSIAMMA THOMAS, S/O LATE THOMAS DOMINIC, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUKKADA HOUSE, NALUNNAKKAL, VAKATHANAM, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. DOMINIC THOMAS, S/O LATE THOMAS DOMINIC, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUKKADA HOUSE, NALUNNAKKAL, VAKATHANAM, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. MERCY JOY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O. LATE JOYKUTTY DOMINIC, MUKKADA HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 29175 of 2008(W) -2- 11. DR. ROY J MUKKADA, S/O. LATE JOYKUTTY DOMINIC, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, C/O. LAKESHORE HOSPITAL, MARADU, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DT. 12. ROJI J. MUKKADA, S/O. LATE JOYKUTTY DOMINIC, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ELAK ESTATE, ANAKKAL, MALAMPUZHA, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KALLEKULANGARA EMOOR BHAGAWATHI DEVASWOM, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE EBDOWMENTS (ADMINISTRATION), DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE - 20. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 5. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.29175 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenge Ext.P6 notice issued by the 5th respondent for resumption of certain land which have been given on lease to petitioners by the 2nd respondent Devaswom, allegedly as per directions in Ext.P5 judgment. According to the petitioners, the matter is pending consideration by a Civil Court in A.S. No. 231/2008 and connected cases, wherein there is order of stay also and therefore it is not proper on the part of the 5th respondent to embark upon a parallel enquiry as proposed in Ext.P6. They further contend that the reliance on Ext.P5 judgment for issuing Ext.P6 is misplaced in so far as the petitioners are not parties to that writ petition and there is no specific direction therein in respect of the property leased to the petitioners. 2. Whatever be the merits of the contentions of petitioners, I am of opinion that they have to first raise all these objections before the 5th respondent pursuant to Ext.P6 notice in so far as Ext.P6 is only a show cause notice. In fact petitioners have already filed Ext.P6 objections. That being so, W.P(C)No.29175 of 2008 - 2 - the 5th respondent is bound to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioners in accordance with law, before taking a decision pursuant to Ext.P6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 5th respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them and pass final orders within a period on one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the order is adverse to the petitioners, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the property for a further period of three weeks from the date of communication of the final order to the petitioners so as to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies, against that order. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs