IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24672 of 2010(H)
1. V.V.VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 24672 of 2010 H
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner states that he is an old encroacher in the
puramboke land in Survey No.48/4 of Erattupetta village.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment in
O.P.No.2069/1998, the second respondent issued Ext.P1
order dated 02-04-1998, permitting the petitioner to operate a
STD booth in 6 sq.metre of land at one of the extreme corner
of the puramboke land in survey No.48/4 of Erattupetta
village. Village Officer identified the land, demarcated and
handed over the same to the petitioner on lease. On that
basis, he set up the STD booth and was earning his
livelihood. While so, referring to Ext.P4 circular issued by the
first respondent on 29-08-2009, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P2,
stating that the occupation of the petitioner is impermissible
and called upon the petitioner to vacate the land. Thereupon,
he submitted Ext.P3 representation to the Tahsildar praying
WPC.24672/10
: 2 :
for recalling Ext.P2. Response was not forthcoming and,
therefore, this writ petition was filed.
2. In the meantime, petitioner also submitted Ext.P5
representation before the first respondent requesting to permit
him to continue the occupation of the land in question.
3. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner
is that Ext.P2 is issued mainly on the strength of Ext.P4.
Counsel contends that Ext.P4 is dated 9-08-2009, which is
long after the lease in question was granted to the petitioner,
and according to the learned counsel, Ext.P4 deals with future
assignments and that it will not affect occupations permitted
or leases granted prior thereto.
4. In my view, prima facie, counsel seems to be
justified in his submission. However, since the Government is
the authority which has issued Ext.P4, it is for the Government
to issue any clarification to Ext.P4, considering the
peculiarities of the facts involved.
5. Taking into account the above and also bearing in
WPC.24672/10
: 3 :
mind the pendency of Ext.P5 before the first respondent, it is
directed that the first respondent shall consider Ext.P5
representation filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In the
meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will be
kept in abeyance.
6. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and
writ petition before respondents 1 and 3 for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks