IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13694 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. ABU.K.K, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, KUNNATHUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, PORKULAM,TRICHUR-680-542. 2. AISYA, W/O.(LATE) MOIDEEN, KOMBATHEYIL HOUSE, PORKULAM,TRICHUR-680542. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD SRI.V.D.BALAKRISHNA KARTHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS SUB DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THALAPPILLY,TRICHUR-680582. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER : SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13694 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are stated as aggrieved of Exts.P3 and P4 notices/orders issued by the 2nd respondent with reference to Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, whereby the petitioners have been asked to demolish the building in question situated in the property concerned. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the properties for valid sale consideration and constructed the building therein and were enjoying the same with absolute ownership, clear title and exclusive possession for more than five decades. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition with regard to the aspects involved, challenging the sustainability of Exts.P3 and P4 orders (though styled as notices) issued/passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well, who fairly submits that Exts.P3 and P4 can be treated as “notices” with liberty to the petitioners to file objections and that the matter can be finalised accordingly. 3. In the above circumstances, it is declared that Exts.P3 and P4 shall be treated as “notices”under Section 12 of the Act and the petitioners may file objections within two weeks from the W.P.(C) No.13694/2011 2 date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the concerned authority (R2) in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners within a further period of two months thereafter. 4. 'Status quo' will continue till such time. 5. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the 2nd respondent while submitting the statement of objections as above, for taking further steps. Writ Petition is disposed of. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE