IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 17212 of 2007(Y)
1. THE AYILAKKAD MUSLIM JUMA-ATH MAHALLU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.BEERAN(SR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :27/07/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NOs.17212,17231,
17372,18904 & 21080 OF 2007
---------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2007
JUDGMENT
W.P.(c)Nos.17231,18904 & 21080/07
The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Kerala Land
Conservancy Act for eviction of the petitioner from the properties,
which are the subject matter of these three writ petitions. In W.P.(c)
No.18904/07 the petitioner has taken a contention that the petitioner
has applied for a copy of the proceedings No.7429/1948 dated
18.11.1948 by which a ‘patta’ has been issued in respect of the
property in question, which has not been issued to him and therefore,
there may be a direction to the appropriate authority to issue a copy of
the said ‘pata’ to him, and to stay further proceedings till the copy is
issued to him.
2. I had directed the learned Government pleader to obtain
instructions as to whether such ‘patta’ has been issued in favour of one
Narayana Panicker as claimed by the petitioner. The learned
Government pleader submits that there is no such ‘patta’, which is
strongly disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However,
in view of the fact that I am satisfied that the petitioner has not been
W.P.(c)No.17231.07 & con.cases 2
afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as
contemplated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, I feel it
appropriate to direct the concerned Tahsildar to reconsider the
matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner, which shall include an opportunity to adduce evidence
also. Such opportunity would also include opportunity to contest
the contention of the respondents that there is no ‘patta’ in favour
of one Narayana Panicker as per proceedings No.7429/1948 dated
18.11.1948. The petitioner may produce appropriate evidence to
prove that there is such a ‘patta’ issued. In the above
circumstances, Ext.P10 in W.P.(c)No.21080/07 is quashed.
These writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the
Tahsildar, Ponnani to reconsider the matter after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, which shall include an
opportunity to adduce evidence also with respect to the matters
referred to herein before me. Thereafter, the Tahsildar shall pass a
speaking order dealing with the contentions of the petitioner. Such
orders shall also deal with the contention of the petitioner regarding
the existence or otherwise of the ‘patta’ referred to above. Till after
7days of communication of such order to the petitioner, the
petitioner shall not be evicted from the property in question.
W.P.(c)No.17231.07 & con.cases 3
W.P.(c)Nos.17212,17372/2007
Although Writ Petition Nos.1721,17372/2007 are not posted
today, both sides submit that those writ petitions also pertain to the
same subject matter, and that these writ petitions can be disposed
of together. Judgment in W.P.(c)Nos.17231,18904 &
21080/2007 will govern these writ petitions also.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.17231.07 & con.cases 4