IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28564 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- S.BALAKRISHNA KURUP @ BALAN PILLAI, AGED 75, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, KAVICHANETH HOUSE, SUKU BHAVANAM, KOIPALLY KARAMMA, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, PIN-690101. 2. THE ASST. ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION, MAVELIKKARA, PIN 690101. 3. P.MOHANKUMAR, LAKSHMI SADANAM, NADAYIL THEKKETHIL, THARAYIL, KOIPPALLY KARAMMA, MAVELIKKARA, PIN-690101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28564 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Petitioner states that since 1980, he has been conducting a petty shop in front of Devi Temple, Mavelikkara. It is stated that the 3rd respondent wanted the petitioner to be vacated and when his attempts did not yield result, he approached this Court by filing O.P. No.2333/03. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 27th of May 2010 with the following directions; The 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action in the matter under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties and passing final orders as to whether there is any encroachment by the 4th respondent into the purambokku land which would partially or otherwise obstruct the right of the way of the petitioner to his property. If on consideration of the facts and evidence before the 2nd respondent subject to right of appeal etc. of the parties concerned, competent among respondents 1 to 3 shall take further action pursuant thereto in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be taken up and completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WPC No. 28564/10 :2 : 3. It is stated that in total violation of the aforesaid directions and without even issuing any notice to him, Exts.P4 and P6 have been issued requiring the petitioner to vacate from the premises. Petitioner submits that these proceedings are illegal not only for the reason that it was in violation of the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, but also for violation of the principles of natural justice and for non compliance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. 4. Obviously Exts.P4 and P6 do not indicate that even a notice was served on the petitioner. Further, there is also no mention about the direction in Ext.P3 judgment. Therefore, petitioner seems to be well justified in his contention. 5. Having regard to the fact that Exts.P4 and P6 were without putting the petitioner on notice, these orders cannot be sustained and consequential action based on Exts.P4 and P6 cannot be continued. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; (1) Exts.P4 and P6 will be treated as notices to the petitioner. (2) It will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to WPC No. 28564/10 :3 : the notices within two weeks from today. (3) It is directed that once reply is filed by the petitioner as above, petitioner and the 3rd respondent will be heard and the 2nd respondent who has issued Exts.P4 and P6 will pass fresh orders in the matter duly adverting to the direction in Ext.P3 judgment. (4) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp