IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2008 / 2ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38014 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.X. ALBIN, VALIATHARA, CHINNAKKANAL, IDUKKI. 2. SIBI THOMAS, KARIAMPLACKAL, CHINNAKKANAL, IDUKKI. 3. ANTHONIAMMAL, W/O. RAMER, SURYANELLI COLONY, CHINNAKKANAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, DEVIKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.38014 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are in possession of certain land in Chinnakanal Village in Idukki District. By Ext.P6 order, the District Collector upheld their title in respect of the same. But Ext.P7 appeal has been preferred by the 2nd respondent in the matter and as per Ext.P8, the same was posted for hearing on 19.12.2008. The Advocate for the petitioners submitted Ext.P9 application for adjournment of the matter on account of some personal inconvenience of the Advocate. However, the 1st respondent has refused to grant adjournment and took up the appeal for orders. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1 st respondent not to finalise the proceedings in pursuance of Exhibits P-7 and P-8 without providing the petitioners with an opportunity of being heard, b) Hold that the refusal to consider Exhibit-P9 application is arbitrary and illegal. W.P.(c)No.38014/08 2 c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1 st respondent to hear the petitioners before passing final orders on Exhibits P-7 and P-8 proceedings, and d) Be further pleased to issue such other interim orders as are warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In so far as the adjournment is sought on the ground of a personal inconvenience of the Advocate, I think that the 1st respondent ought to have granted the adjournment requested for as per Ext.P9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that final orders shall be passed in the matter only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners granting the adjournment prayed for as per Ext.P9. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.38014/08 3