IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13104 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABE THOMAS, AGED 53, S/O. THOMAS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PORKULAM P.O., PAZHANJI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, TALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.68019. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, CHELAKARA SECTION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 68011. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13104 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Rule 13A of the Land Conservancy Rules, by which the petitioner is directed to remove the alleged encroachment as mentioned in Ext.P4 notice. The further grievance of the petitioner is that, though an objection is filed against Ext.P4 notice as evident from Ext.P5, no orders are passed thereon and the further apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents will demolish and remove the alleged encroachment behind his back. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader. 3. From the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it appears that in terms of Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 objection but so far no reply is given to the petitioner after Ext.P5 and after hearing him on his objection. If 2 W.P.(C)No.13104 of 2011 that be so, I am of the view that, the respondents can be directed to pass an order on Ext.P5 objection. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 objection preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after giving him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent along with a copy of this writ petition. Till the disposal of Ext.P5 as directed above, the 2nd respondent is directed to maintain status quo. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/