Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1098 (KER)

Mohammed Kutty v. Tahsildar

2012-12-19

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

body2012
JUDGMENT : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 notice issued under Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules. The petitioner claims ownership and possession of 10 cents of land in survey No.79/1 and 27/1 of Viruppakka Village, purchased as per document Nos. 2185/96 and 1642/97. Ext.P1 is a true copy of the tax receipt. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner with his wife and four unmarried daughters are residing in the property and they are conducting a provisional store in the said property. The property is situated on the side of Wadakanchery - Vazhani PWD road at Virupakka Centre. It is submitted that the petitioner is now confronted with eviction proceedings. On 07.12.2012, the 3rd respondent came to the property of the petitioner and fixed two feet length concrete pillar in the middle of the petitioner's shop room and directed to remove the building within three days so as to hand over the vacant place. 3. The petitioner challenges the action on various grounds. Mainly it is pointed out that the petitioner's objection has not been considered and he has not been heard also. No speaking orders are passed by any of the officers and due enquiry also has not been conducted. If any adverse order is passed, the petitioner will have to file an appeal and the said opportunity is also denied. 4. Learned Government Pleader on getting instructions submitted that a survey was conducted and thereafter the present steps have been taken. Even if a survey is conducted, the petitioner will have to be communicated about the details of the property covered by the alleged encroachment, if any, as otherwise if the petitioner is asked to remove the building it may cause difficulty to establish his claim later. In a matter like this where serious disputes are there with regard to the allegations itself about the encroachment, the parties are entitled for getting due notices as well as information regarding the alleged encroached area and other details. No such details are furnished in Ext.P3. 5. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue proper notice to the petitioner in the matter and allow the petitioner to raise his objections also in writing and after hearing the petitioner, a proper order will be passed containing the necessary details. No such details are furnished in Ext.P3. 5. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue proper notice to the petitioner in the matter and allow the petitioner to raise his objections also in writing and after hearing the petitioner, a proper order will be passed containing the necessary details. Even though the learned Government Pleader submits that those requirements cannot be there in the light of Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, I am of the view that to comply the principles of natural justice and for enabling the petitioner to avail the effective remedy of appeal, those details may have to be furnished by the 3rd respondent. Appropriate action will be finalised within a period of three weeks. The interim order passed by this Court will continue till then. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to surrender any area which is found to be described as puramboke but only after considering his objections. The same is recorded. This writ petition is disposed of as above.