IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12977 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. JIJI SCARIA, VELLOOKUNNEL, SURYANELLI P.O., IDUKKI. 2. ANITHA JIJI, WIFE OF JIJI SCARIA, VELLOOKUNNEL, SURYANELLI P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA. 4. JOY THOMAS, SON OF THOMAS, THAZHEMANNIL, KANAKAPPALAM, ERUMELI P.O. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. D. ANILKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12977 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners purchased a property from persons to whom the land was assigned to, as per Ext.P1. Proceedings were taken against their predecessor in interest. This led to the filing of a writ petition by the petitioner culminating in Ext.P4 judgment. The complaint of the petitioner was that the decision to cancel the Patta by issuing notice to the assignor only is illegal. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that any action for cancellation of Patta of the land covered by Exts.P1 to P3 will be only with notice to the petitioner, closed the writ petition. 2. Thereafter, the petitioners are confronted with Exts.P6 and P7 notices by the 3rd respondent and also Exts.P8 and P9 notices are issued. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P6 to P9 and they pray that it may be held that proper notice be issued to them. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.Ramakrishnan and the learned Government Pleader, Sri.Anilkumar, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. WPC No. 12977 OF 2008 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that this Court has made it clear in Ext.P5 judgment that the respondents were obliged to issue proper notice to them. It is stated that notices Exts.P6 and P7 on the one hand discloses one stand and Exts.P8 and P9 discloses another. In Exts.P7 and P8, it is pointed out that the Patta is bogus and it is the petitioners' case that the notices are vague. 5. Learned Government Pleader points out that what is challenged in this Writ Petition is that proper notice be issued to the petitioners and proper notices were issued to them. I feel that Exts.P6 to P9 are notices and if there is contradiction in the notices issued, it is a matter to be urged before the 3rd respondent. This Court would not normally interfere with the notices. However, I make it clear that, it is open to the petitioners to raise all their contentions available in law and on facts before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners also before a decision is taken in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 12977 OF 2008 3 WPC No. 12977 OF 2008 4