Mohammed Fazal K.M. vs The Village Officer on 1 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2221 of 2010(C)


1. MOHAMMED FAZAL K.M., LATE K.M.MOHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

3. R.D.O.,

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :01/02/2010

 O R D E R
             P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                -----------------------------------------------
                        WP(C) No. 2221 of 2010
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated, this the 1st day of February, 2010


                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 proceedings of the 4th

respondent, whereby the ground rent is stated as enhanced nearly

‘thousand times’; that too with retrospective effect and without giving any

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits

that the premises were originally let out to one Abdul Seit for business

purpose, stipulating the lease rent. It is borne out by Ext.P1 proceedings

passed by the 4th respondent that the physical possession of the

premises at the hands of the petitioner is very much admitted, even by

the 4th respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that the

2nd respondent had issued a notice way back in January, 2007 to the

petitioner as well as the original allottee, cancelling the lease hold

arrangement. The submission made in this regard is vehemently

opposed by the petitioner, stating that no such notice whatsoever was

ever served to the petitioner at any point of time. It is also stated by the

learned counsel that the petitioner is remitting necessary taxes with

effect from 1990 onwards and that the possession of the premises at the

WP(C) No.2221/2010
2

hands of the petitioner is very much known to the 4th respondent, who

issued Ext.P1 without giving opportunity of hearing, which hence is under

challenge in this Writ Petition.

3. In view of the admitted possession as put forth the learned

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that before passing

Ext.P1, no notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner, the matter

requires to be reconsidered after giving an opportunity of hearing. In the

said circumstance, Ext.P1 is set aside and the 4th respondent is directed

to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner; which exercise shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. It is also made clear that till such appropriate orders are

passed afresh, all further coercive steps stated as being pursued against

the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc