High Court Kerala High Court

Wilson George vs District Collector on 2 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Wilson George vs District Collector on 2 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19212 of 2007(K)


1. WILSON GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :02/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

                        ---------------------------------

                         W.P.(C)NO. 19212 OF 2007

                       -----------------------------------

               DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2007


                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner has been directed by Ext.P1 notice to demolish the

petitioner’s compound wall on the allegations that the same has been

constructed encroaching into Government land. The petitioner’s

contention is that the petitioner has not encroached into any

Government land and that the compound wall has been constructed in

the petitioner’s own property. The petitioner further submits that

before issuing Ext.P1 notice, he has not been given any notice to show

cause or hearing and therefore, Ext.P1 is violative of principles of

natural justice as well as the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act

and Rules.

2. I have heard the learned Government pleader also. The

learned Government pleader could not satisfy me that Ext.P1 was

preceded by any notice or hearing. Ext.P1 is also devoid of any

reasons for invoking the emergency provisions under the Land

Conservancy Act, which has to be recorded as per the provisions of the

Kerala Land Conservancy Act. In the above circumstances, I am

satisfied that Ext.P1 has been issued in violation of the principles of

natural justice as well as the provisions of the Kerala Land

W.P.(c)No.19212/07 2

Conservancy Act and Rules. However, if Ext.P1 is treated as a show

cause notice, it would not be necessary to quash the same.

Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to treat Ext.P1 as a show

cause notice and Ext.P2 as the objections filed by the petitioner

against the same. The 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P2

objections to Ext.P1 in the light of the evidence to be produced by

the petitioner for which the petitioner shall be given an opportunity

to adduce evidence as also a hearing. Thereafter the 2nd

respondent shall pass a speaking order considering the contentions

of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence to be produced by the

petitioner. Till orders passed as above are communicated to the

petitioner, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the property in

question and the petitioner’s wall shall not be demolished.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(c)No.19212/07 3