Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RETNAKUMAR, SUKUMARA VILASOM, VALLIKODE versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RETNAKUMAR, SUKUMARA VILASOM, VALLIKODE v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - WP(C) No. 19528 of 2007(Y) [2007] RD-KL 11287 (26 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19528 of 2007(Y)

1. RETNAKUMAR, SUKUMARA VILASOM, VALLIKODE
... Petitioner

2. SREEKUMAR, SUKUMARA VILASOM, VALLIKODE

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
... Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. KODUMON GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR.

For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :26/06/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN, J

W.P.(C).No. 19528/2007 Dated this 26th day of June, 2007

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioners challenge Ext.P7 notice issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules directing the petitioners to vacate the properties mentioned therein within 72 hours. The contention of the petitioners is that Ext.P7 has not been preceded by any notice or hearing and the same is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P7 has been issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer and further proceedings is to be taken by the fourth respondent.

3. The petitioners have already filed Ext.P8 objections. The learned Government Pleader could not satisfy that Ext.P7 was preceded by any notice or hearing. Ext.P7 also does not contain any reasons as to why the W.P.(C).19528/2007 2 Emergency provisions under the Land Conservancy Act should be invoked. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext.P7 has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. However, in view of the orders I propose to pass, it is not necessary to quash Ext.P7 as such. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

4. The second respondent shall forward Ext.P7 and P8 to the fourth respondent who shall consider Ext.P7 as a show cause notice and Ext.P8 as a reply to the same. Thereafter, the fourth respondent shall consider Ext.P8 objections in the light of the evidence to be adduced by the petitioners for which the petitioners shall be given an opportunity. The fourth respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard also to the petitioners and pass a speaking order considering all the objections of the petitioners as well as the evidence furnished by the petitioners. Needless to say, till the W.P.(C).19528/2007 3 final orders are passed, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the property in question. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN

JUDGE

mrcs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.