ANNAMMA GEORGE v. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Apr 2008
- Bench
- ANTONY DOMINIC
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petitions are disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Therefore, Ext.P3 in these cases will stand quashed reserving liberty to the 1st respondent to proceed with the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to prove their contentions. I clarify that the contention of the petitioners regarding the incompetence of…
Judgment
WPC NO. 11295/08- 2 - 2. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NOS.11395/08 AND 12068/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J.===============W.P.(C) NOs. 11295, 11395 & 12068 OF 2008=============================Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N TIn these writ petitions, Ext.P3 are the orders under challenge. Petitioners who are in possession of various extents of land in PoruvazhyVillage, have been issued Ext.P1 notices, invoking power under Section 12of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. On receipt of Ext.P1 notices, petitioners have filed Ext.P2 replies along with several documents justifying their possession. According to the petitioners, subsequent to the filing of Ext.P2 replies, they did not hear anything from the respondents and were surprised to receive Ext.P3 orders, describing them as encroachers and threatening that they are liable to be penalised under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. It is submitted that on the strength of Ext.P3,they are also facing threat of being evicted from their lands as well.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised several contentions regarding the invalidity of the order and the incompetence of the 1st respondent to issue the impugned proceedings, for the present, I am impressed by the argument raised on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. WPC 11295, 11395 & 12068 /08:2 :
As is evident from the impugned order itself that the petitioners have filed their objections and produced documents, but they were not given any further notice or nor where they heard on the contentions that they have urged. In the light of the several factual disputes raised and the documents produced, the 1st respondent should not have passed orders without allowing the petitioners an opportunity to prove their contentions. This having not been done, I am satisfied that the impugned orders deserve to be invalidated on the ground that the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.
Operative part
Therefore, Ext.P3 in these cases will stand quashed reserving liberty to the 1st respondent to proceed with the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to prove their contentions. I clarify that the contention of the petitioners regarding the incompetence of the 1strespondent initiating the proceedings has not been examined by me and Ileave that contention open. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1strespondent for compliance. Writ petitions are disposed of as above.ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.Rp
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petitions are disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 — s. 12; theKerala Land Conservancy Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 09 Apr 2008. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.