IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19281 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.N.VIJAYAN, S/O. ANANDAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, VIJAY BHAVAN, VEGETARIAN CANTEEN, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ESTATE OFFICER, MALAMPUZHA PROJECT AND ASST. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HEAD WORK SUB DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.19291/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.19281/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 19/10/1994. P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03/05/1995 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEAD WORKS SUBDIVISION, MALAMPUZHA. P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MONEY ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUBDIVISION, MALAMPUZHA. P4 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 19/01/2011 IN WP(C)NO.1972/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE OBJECTION (REPLY) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P5. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.19281 & 19291 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order dated 4.7.2011 issued by the second respondent under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 is under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners are lessees in occupation of buildings situated in Malampuzha Garden under the control of the Irrigation Department. Initially, the second respondent issued separate orders directing the petitioners to vacate their buildings for the purpose of renovating the Malampuzha Garden. At that stage, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) Nos.1601 of 2011 and 1972 of 2011 in this Court challenging the impugned notices. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 19.1.2011, this Court held that notices issued by the second respondent are not in accordance with the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971. The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings under the said Act for the eviction of the petitioners with a further direction that until then, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed. It was pursuant thereto that the impugned notices were issued calling upon the petitioners to vacate the buildings in their possession within W.P.(C) Nos.19281 & 19291 of 2011 2 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The main contention raised in these writ petitions is that the notices are not in terms of the provisions contained in sections 4 and 5 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. 3. I heard Sri.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.P.N.Santhosh, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P5 notice that steps have been initiated against the petitioners to evict them from the respective buildings in their possession under the provisions of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. Section 4 of the Act stipulates that if the Estate Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public building and thathe should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner provided a notice in writing calling upont the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. It is also stipulated that the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be passed and require the person concerned who is in occupation of the public building to show cause against the proposed order of eviction. Section 5(2) of the Act stipulates that after the order of eviction is passed, if any person against whom the order is passed, refuses or W.P.(C) Nos.19281 & 19291 of 2011 3 fails to comply with the order of eviction within 30 days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), the Estate Officer or any other officer duly authorised by him in this behalf may evict that person from and take possession of the public building and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. 4. In the instant case, it is evident from a reading of the order that the Estate Officer has merely issued notices called upon the petitioners to vacate the building within 15 days. Though in the impugned notices, the ground on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made is set out, viz., for renovating the Malampuzha Garden, the Estate Officer have not given the petitioners an opportunity to show cause against the order proposed to be passed. I am therefore satisfied that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petitions, quash the impugned orders, but without prejudice to the right of the Estate Officer to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with sections 4 and 5 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.