IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 11057 of 2008(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.V.ZAKKIR HUSSAIN, KADAVIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, AYILAKKAD P.O, EDAPPAL VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.BEERAN(SR.) SRI.V.P.REGHURAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI, TALUK PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 11057 OF 2008 N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The matter araises under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1954. Aggrieved by Ext. P11 order, Ext. P12 appeal was filed before the 2nd respondent. That also met with rejection by Ext. P13 order and thereupon the petitioner filed Ext. P14 revision to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent heard the parties on 15.12.2007 and orders were reserved. Thereafter, the then incumbent was transferred and there has not been any subsequent hearing of the matter. However, the petitioner received Ext. P16 dated 28.3.2008, which obviously was an order passed by the successor in office. It is stated that Ext. P16 order was served on the petitioner on 29.3.2008 and the land involved was also taken soon thereafter. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 2. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several contentions, I feel, the order needs to be W.P.(C) No. 11057 OF 2008 - 2 - interfered with on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice involved. It is obvious that though the parties were head on 15.12.2007, the order was not passed by the officer who heard the petitioner. Ext. P16 impugned order was issued by the successor and this factual position was not in dispute either. 3. In view of this, Ext. P16 needs to be quashed and I do so. It is directed that the 3rd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and passed fresh orders in the matter adverting to the contentions raised. Needless to say that in the meanwhile the status quo as on 28.3.2008 will be maintained until orders are passed in the matter. It is also directed that if the order to be passed is adverse to the petitioner, the same will not be implemented for a period of 2 weeks from the date of service. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-