High Court Kerala High Court

Kandathu Valappil Kadeeja vs The Revenue Divisional Offricer on 15 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Kandathu Valappil Kadeeja vs The Revenue Divisional Offricer on 15 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8505 of 2010(K)


1. KANDATHU VALAPPIL KADEEJA,53 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFRICER, TIRUR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIPPURAM.

4. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :15/06/2010

 O R D E R
                              S. Siri Jagan, J.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W.P(C) No. 8505 of 2010
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this, the 15th day of June, 2010.

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims to be an illiterate lady residing in 12 cents

of property. Against the property, proceedings under the Kerala

Land Utilization Order were initiated, which resulted in Ext. P2

order. The petitioner thereafter filed Ext. P4 appeal before the 4th

respondent. A notice of hearing of Ext. P4 was issued to the

petitioner’s advocate as well as the petitioner. The notice did not

reach the petitioner’s advocate in time. According to the petitioner,

since the petitioner is an illiterate lady, she did not understand the

notice received by her till her son came home, by which time the date

of hearing was also over. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent

passed Ext. P7 order confirming the orders of the lower authority.

The petitioner now seeks a chance of re-hearing in view of the fact

that it was because of circumstances beyond her control that she or

her advocate could not attend the hearing.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking a lenient view,

I direct the 4th respondent to re-hear Ext. P4 appeal after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, for which purpose Ext.

P7 stands quashed. The petitioner or her advocate shall appear

before the 4th respondent on 28-6-2010. On that date, the 4th

respondent shall give the petitioner or her advocate a date for hearing

of the appeal and on the date of hearing so fixed, the petitioner or her

advocate shall be present for hearing. The 4th respondent shall hear

W.P.C. No. 8505/2010 -: 2 :-

the petitioner or her advocate on that date and pass appropriate final

orders.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.