IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1744 of 2011(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- HOTEL AROOR RESIDENCY, AROOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, TOMY JOSEPH. BY ADVS. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 4. AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AROOR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AROOR - 688 534. 5. P.K.DINESAN, S/O.KESAVAN, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, DOOR NO.117, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA - 688532. 6. SINDHU DINESH, W/O.P.K.DINESAN, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, DOOR NO.117, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA - 688532. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 1744 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Hotel Aroor Residency, the petitioner contends that it is being run on a partnership basis and that the firm is the absolute owner of the building bearing door No.A.P.VII/492-D and the immovable property wherein the building is situated. It is submitted that change of ownership of the building was effected on the basis of Exts. P1 to P10. It is further contended that the 5th respondent has preferred Ext.P14 petition before the 4th respondent raising untenable contentions affecting the petitioner's right over the aforesaid building without impleading the proper parties and thereupon, as an abundant caution, the petitioner has filed Ext.P15 before the 4th respondent. In short, the apprehension of the petitioner is that without affording an opportunity of being heard the issue that has been raised as the proceedings initiated based on Ext.P14 would be finalised. In such eventuality it would entail in-expiable hardship to the petitioner and it is to avoid such a situation that Ext.P14 has been filed. In the wake of the said WPC.1744/2011 : 2 : facts and circumstances the petitioner seeks an opportunity of being heard in the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P14. Evidently, the subject matter in Ext.P14 pertains to the ownership of the property which appears to have been changed in the name of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 to P10. I have carefully considered the pleadings in this writ petition. It is obvious from the same that apprehension of the petitioner can not be said to be unfounded as long as the issue raised as per Ext.P14 is one touching the ownership of the aforesaid building. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. As noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P14 petition has been preferred by the 5th respondent before the 4th respondent and it is pending before the 4th respondent and apprehending action in violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has also preferred Ext.P15 and it is also pending before the 4th respondent. Indisputably, Exts. P14 and P15 pertains to the ownership of the building referred above. In the said circumstances, it will only be appropriate for the 4th respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also the 5th respondent before finalizing the WPC.1744/2011 : 3 : proceedings initiated based on Ext.P14. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also to the 5th respondent before finalization of the proceedings initiated based on Ext.P14. Ext.P15 shall also taken up for hearing along with Ext.P14. Disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.a to Judge