High Court Kerala High Court

Mariyakutty Augustine vs The Assistant Engineer on 9 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mariyakutty Augustine vs The Assistant Engineer on 9 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17919 of 2010(L)


1. MARIYAKUTTY AUGUSTINE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.ALOSIOUS, AGED 80,
3. REETHA, THRVTTU VEEDU, DO. DO.
4. GEORGE.P.T., PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, DO. DO.
5. PUSHPA.P.T, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU OF
6. SKARIA, SHINE NIVAS OF DO. DO.
7. SAJI, S/O.PIOUS, SAJI BHAVANIL,
8. RAVICHANDRAN, S/O.MANUEL,

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. SECRETARY TO P.W.D.,

4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :09/06/2010

 O R D E R
                              S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W.P(C) No. 17919 of 2010
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this, the 9th day of June, 2010.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P2 and similar notices

directing the petitioners to vacate certain properties in their

possession on the allegation that the petitioners have encroached

into Government land. The petitioners submit that the petitioners

have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before issuing

Ext. P2 directing vacating of the property in question. They would

therefore submit that Ext. P2 and similar notices have been issued in

violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. I am of opinion that the Kerala Land Conservancy Act

presupposes a notice and a hearing with opportunity to adduce

evidence before a person can be directed to vacate properties on the

ground that the same is Government land. Ext. P2 does not even

indicate that such an opportunity has been given to the petitioners.

Therefore, Ext. P2 and similar notices are liable to be quashed on that

ground. But, I am of opinion that that if the same is regarded as

show cause notices, they need no be quashed as such. In the above

circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

The 1st respondent shall treat Ext. P2 and similar notices issued

to the petitioners as show cause notices directing them to show cause

why they should not be evicted from the property involved. The

petitioners shall file their objections to the same within a period of

two weeks. On receipt of the objections, the 1st respondent shall issue

notices to the petitioners for a hearing fixing a day for the same, on

which day, the petitioners shall be present before the 1st respondent

with all evidence in support of their contentions. The 1st respondent

shall, after hearing the petitioners, consider the evidence to be

W.P.C. No. 17919/2010 -: 2 :-

produced by the petitioners and pass a considered order dealing with

every contention of the petitioners and entering specific findings

thereon. The orders to be passed shall be served on the petitioners.

The petitioners shall not be evicted from the property in question

until after two weeks from the date when the orders are served on

the petitioners.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.