IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14010 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.V.MOHAMMED RAFI, AGED 42, S/O.HAMEED, RAYIN MARAKKAR VEETTIL, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THYCAUD, GURUVAYOOR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14010 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P1 notice issued to the petitioner directing him to restore the petitioner's property as a paddy land/wet land allegedly on the ground that the petitioner has illegally converted the land. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has not done anything illegal. He would submit that Ext. P1 has not been preceded by a notice or hearing, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. He also submits that under the Kerala Land Utilization Order also, the petitioner is entitled to a right of hearing. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the respondents are proceeding under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act. But, he does not dispute the fact that Ext. P1 was not preceded by a notice or hearing. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext. P1 shall be treated by both sides as a notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the action as contemplated in Ext. P1 should not be taken. The petitioner shall file his reply within three weeks. The appropriate authority under the statutory provision under which the respondents propose to proceed, shall pass a final order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.