IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17919 of 2010(L) PETITIONER(S): 1. MARIYAKUTTY AUGUSTINE, AGED 60, RAJEEV BHAVAN, KANJIRAKODE, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. S.ALOSIOUS, AGED 80, USHA BHAVAN OF DO. DO. 3. REETHA, THRVTTU VEEDU, DO. DO. 4. GEORGE.P.T., PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, DO. DO. 5. PUSHPA.P.T, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU OF DO. DO. 6. SKARIA, SHINE NIVAS OF DO. DO. 7. SAJI, S/O.PIOUS, SAJI BHAVANIL, OF DO. DO. 8. RAVICHANDRAN, S/O.MANUEL, MINI BHAVAN OF DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. SECRETARY TO P.W.D., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17919 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P2 and similar notices directing the petitioners to vacate certain properties in their possession on the allegation that the petitioners have encroached into Government land. The petitioners submit that the petitioners have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before issuing Ext. P2 directing vacating of the property in question. They would therefore submit that Ext. P2 and similar notices have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that the Kerala Land Conservancy Act presupposes a notice and a hearing with opportunity to adduce evidence before a person can be directed to vacate properties on the ground that the same is Government land. Ext. P2 does not even indicate that such an opportunity has been given to the petitioners. Therefore, Ext. P2 and similar notices are liable to be quashed on that ground. But, I am of opinion that that if the same is regarded as show cause notices, they need no be quashed as such. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall treat Ext. P2 and similar notices issued to the petitioners as show cause notices directing them to show cause why they should not be evicted from the property involved. The petitioners shall file their objections to the same within a period of two weeks. On receipt of the objections, the 1st respondent shall issue notices to the petitioners for a hearing fixing a day for the same, on which day, the petitioners shall be present before the 1st respondent with all evidence in support of their contentions. The 1st respondent shall, after hearing the petitioners, consider the evidence to be W.P.C. No. 17919/2010 -: 2 :- produced by the petitioners and pass a considered order dealing with every contention of the petitioners and entering specific findings thereon. The orders to be passed shall be served on the petitioners. The petitioners shall not be evicted from the property in question until after two weeks from the date when the orders are served on the petitioners. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.