IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 5797 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOIDEEN KOYA, M/S.ALFA SAW MILL, MOORIYAD, KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, KASABA, KOZHIKODE. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, E.K.CANAL SECTION,KOZHIKODE. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5797 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P8 notice issued by Assistant Engineer directing him to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction made by him. 2. The petitioner purchased property to an extent of 10 cents in Kasaba amsom, desom of Kozhikode Taluk as per assignment deed dated 9/1/1991 which is produced as Ext.P1 herein. He is conducting business in the property for the last several years which is licenced by various authorities. These documents have been produced as Exts.P2 to P5. 3. The Eastern side of the petitioner’s property is Mooriyad river. The petitioner was issued a notice by the first respondent under the Land Conservancy Act to which he has submitted Ext.P7 reply and no final order has been passed by the first respondent. Petitioner has not yet been heard in the matter. In the meanwhile, the third respondent asked the petitioner to demolish the portion of the unauthorized construction. W.P.(C)No.5797 of 2010 2 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the matter is pending before the Tahsildar and he would take a decision after hearing the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents are proceeding with the action hastely on the basis of the alleged unauthorized occupation by the petitioner. Obviously there is no final decision yet by the 2nd respondent. It is upto the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner will be allowed an opportunity to adduce evidence in the matter. An appropriate order will be passed after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months. Further action on Ext.P8 will be kept in abeyance in the meanwhile. The first respondent will communicate these directions to the third respondent for compliance. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj