IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 11295 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. ANNAMMA GEORGE, THURUTHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU VADAKKE MURI. 2. PURUSHAN PILLAI, JALAJA BHAVANAM, NADUVILE MURI. 3. BADARUDEEN, APPAZHANJIYIL, PALLIMURI, PORUVAZHY. 4. AZEES, ASANTAYYATH, PANAPPETTY, SASTHAMCOTTA. 5. NARAYANA PILLAI, SYAMALA VILASOM, NADUVILEMURI, CHAKKUVALLY. 6. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, PADINJATTA VEETTIL, EHAVARAM NADUVILE MURI, PORUVAZHY. 7. THANKAPPA KURUP, KAILER KANDATHIL, ERAVICHIRA, SOORANAD SOUTH. 8. SAJI LUKOSE, JIJI BHAVANAM, VADAKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTA. WPC NO. 11295/08 - 2 - 2. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NOS.11395/08 AND 12068/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 11295, 11395 & 12068 OF 2008 ============================= Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, Ext.P3 are the orders under challenge. Petitioners who are in possession of various extents of land in Poruvazhy Village, have been issued Ext.P1 notices, invoking power under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. On receipt of Ext.P1 notices, petitioners have filed Ext.P2 replies along with several documents justifying their possession. According to the petitioners, subsequent to the filing of Ext.P2 replies, they did not hear anything from the respondents and were surprised to receive Ext.P3 orders, describing them as encroachers and threatening that they are liable to be penalised under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. It is submitted that on the strength of Ext.P3, they are also facing threat of being evicted from their lands as well. 2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised several contentions regarding the invalidity of the order and the incompetence of the 1st respondent to issue the impugned proceedings, for the present, I am impressed by the argument raised on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. WPC 11295, 11395 & 12068 /08 :2 : 3. As is evident from the impugned order itself that the petitioners have filed their objections and produced documents, but they were not given any further notice or nor where they heard on the contentions that they have urged. In the light of the several factual disputes raised and the documents produced, the 1st respondent should not have passed orders without allowing the petitioners an opportunity to prove their contentions. This having not been done, I am satisfied that the impugned orders deserve to be invalidated on the ground that the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. 4. Therefore, Ext.P3 in these cases will stand quashed reserving liberty to the 1st respondent to proceed with the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to prove their contentions. I clarify that the contention of the petitioners regarding the incompetence of the 1st respondent initiating the proceedings has not been examined by me and I leave that contention open. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp