High Court Kerala High Court

P.K.Abbas vs State Of Kerala on 7 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.K.Abbas vs State Of Kerala on 7 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27692 of 2010(J)


1. P.K.ABBAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GOVINDAKUTTAN, AGED 72 YEARS,
3. K.P.JOSEPH, AGED 53, S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE,
4. KASIM, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE NAVOOR

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

4. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/09/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 27692 OF 2010 (J)
                =====================

         Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

Although the petitioners admit that they are occupants of

road puramboke and are carrying on petty trades, relying on

Ext.P3 judgment in OP NO.5798/93, petitioners contend that their

eviction can only be in compliance with the provisions of the Land

Conservancy Act and only after issuing a notice under Section 11

of the said Act. It is contended that without complying with the

said directions, Ext.P4 series of notices have been issued calling

upon the petitioners to vacate from the places occupied by them

within 7 days. It is these notices which are under challenge.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It is an undisputed fact that in Ext.P3 judgment

rendered by this Court in OP NO.5798/93 filed by the petitioners,

it has been directed that their eviction can only be after notice to

them as per Section 11(3) of the Land Conservancy Act. This

requirement does not appear to have been complied with, and if

that be so, proceedings initiated by Ext.P4 series of notices

WPC No. 27692/10
:2 :

cannot be sustained.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the directions in

Ext.P3 judgment rendered as above, it is directed that Ext.P4

series of notices be treated as notices in compliance with the

directions in Ext.P3 judgment. It will be open to the petitioners to

file their objections to Ext.P4 series of notices to the 2nd

respondent within 15 days from today. If the petitioners file

replies as above, the 2nd respondent will hear them and pass final

orders in the matter, which shall be done at any rate within 4

weeks of the petitioners filing their objections. In the meanwhile,

it is directed that dispossession pursuant to Ext.P4 series of

notices will be suspended.

5. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment

along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent

for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp