IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4263 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NOUSHADALI C.P., S/O. MOHAMMED, CHAKKIYAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, KULATHUR P.O., AMBALAPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MOORKKANAD VILLAGE, KOLATHUR P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, MOORKKANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VENGAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R2 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 SRI. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------- W.P(C)NO.4263 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of 17 cents of property in R.S No.389/6 and 389/7 of Moorkkanad village, which according to the petitioner was purchased by him as per Ext.P1 Sale deed. Petitioner got Ext.P2 Possession Certificate and Ext.P3 Ownership Certificate in respect of the property. The same was produced before the K.S.E.B for getting electricity connection. On 21/01/2008, the petitioner received Ext.P4 notice from the second respondent to show cause why Ext.P3 Ownership Certificate should not be cancelled. From Ext.P4 the petitioner came to understand that the first respondent had already issued a letter to the second respondent stating that Ext.P2 W.P(C)No.4263/2008 2 Possession Certificate has already been set aside. Petitioner thereafter obtained a copy of Ext.P6 and the petitioner is now challenging Ext.P6 notice. 2. Petitioner's contention is that before issuing Ext.P6 order the petitioner was never heard. According to the petitioner, after having issued a Possession Certificate the first respondent cannot suo motu, without hearing the petitioner, cancel the Possession Certificate. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Pleader and the counsel for the second respondent, Panchayat. The learned Govt. Pleader could not satisfy me that Ext.P6 order was passed by the first respondent after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner. That being so, Ext.P6 order is clearly W.P(C)No.4263/2008 3 violative of the principles of natural justice. For that reason alone, Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly Ext.P6 is quashed. However I make it clear that it would be open to the first respondent to pass fresh orders, if he so intends to do, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE VDV