IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 20132 of 1998(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.P.K.VARUGHESE & SONS, REP: BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BEJOY VARGHESE, BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN : 682 031. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1) THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2) THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3) STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.35490/1998 IN OP.NO.20132/1998-V. DISMISSED. 22.2.2008. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF NOTICE NO.L.1/9283/97 DATED 28.9.1998 ISSUED FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF REPLY DTD.12.10.1998 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF NOTICE NO.L.1/9283/97 DTD.28.9.1998 FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. REPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. (true copy) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.20132 of 1998-V. ========================= Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1951. The notice is dated 28.9.1998 asking the petitioner to vacate from the premises within 24 hours. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale and distribution of provision articles both whole sale and retail. It is further pointed out that the premises have been taken on rent by the petitioner and the rent is being paid continuously. The petitioner states that the landlord obtained patta over the property on condition of payment of ground rent from the Maharaja of Cochin. Initially they were OP.No.20132 of 1998-V. -: 2 :- served with Ext.P1 notice under the very same provision. Ext.P2 is the reply submitted by the petitioner and by Ext.P3 notice again they were asked to vacate the premises. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that there are no circumstances present here for invoking Sec.11(3) of the Act. It is contended that Sec.11(2) of the Act contemplates a notice to vacate the land within a reasonable time and by invoking Sec.11(3) the valuable right of the petitioner to file objections is taken away. 4. Going by the pleadings in the matter it is the case where the petitioner had been in the possession under the landlord for a long time. The drastic power conferred under Sec.11(3) has been invoked here only granting 24 hours to vacate. In Ext.P3 no specific circumstances have been pointed out as to why the proceedings under Sec.11(2) is dispensed with except by stating that the authorities are satisfied that the same has to be dispensed with. It is only a verbatim reproduction of the provision alone. 5. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit OP.No.20132 of 1998-V. -: 3 :- justifying invoking of the power under Sec.11(3). Going by the scheme of the Act, under Sec.11(2) a notice has to be served on the occupant by furnishing a reasonable time to vacate the land, Sec.12 obliges the Collector to give notice before passing an order and such person has the right to file statements and adduce evidence. Therefore, the said provisions confer a valuable right on the occupant to contest the proceedings. When the said right is sought to be taken away, it has to be on proper and valid grounds and nothing is mentioned in Ext.P3, evidently to support the action. Satisfaction of the authorities concerned cannot be arbitrary. Further in this case the petitioner has got a case that the landlord obtained patta from the Maharaja of Cochin and is paying rent also. Therefore these are facts to be examined by the authorities concerned after issuing notices to the respective parties. Therefore, I find that Ext.P3 is bad in law and violates the statutory scheme. Therefore the same is quashed. If any fresh action is proposed by the authorities, the same shall be done only after giving due notice OP.No.20132 of 1998-V. -: 4 :- to the petitioner and any other interested parties and providing opportunity for filing objections and to produce evidence on their part. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-