Kerala High Court
Cannanore County Club And Resorts vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 24 October, 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 16401 of 2007 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------
CANNANORE COUNTY CLUB AND RESORTS
PRIVATE LIMITED, KATTAMPALLY, NARATH
KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
R.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, SON OF A.RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 57 YEARS, 'AVINASH', KANNOTHUMCHAL ROAD
KANNUR-6.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THALASSERRY.
4. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
KANNUR.
5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
IRRIGATION SECTION, KATTAMPALLY, KANNUR.
BY SRI. MUHAMMED SHAFI M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 16401 of 2007 (C)
: 2 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 24.10.2001
EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER COMPANY AND
KATTAMPALLY FARMING COMPANY.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED
DATED 17.08.1996 WITH NO.2669/96 OF S.R.O.
VALAPATTANAM.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JENMOM ASSIGNMENT DEED
NO.524/91 DATED 22.02.1991.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF FIELD NO.199
OF NARATH VILLAGE.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.05.2007 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE NOTICE DATED 23.05.2007 OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.05.2007 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY.
EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.05.2007
REGARDING THE LAND IN SURVEY NO.199/2B AND
198/2.
EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE 4TH RESONDENT
ON 29.05.2007.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rv
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C). No.16401 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2013.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 notices issued under the Kerala Land Coservancy Act and Rules. The primary contention of the petitioner is that before issuing Exts.P7 and P8 notices directing the petitioner to vacate the properties mentioned therein, the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of being heard or to show cause against the said action. It is also submitted that the proceedings have been initiated without measuring the properties to decide whether any Government land is in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:
1. To issue writ of mandamus or order or direction or any other appropriate writ quashing Exts.P7 and P8 notices issued by the 4th respondent.
2. To issue writ of mandamus or order or direction or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents not to proceed against the property of the petitioner company on the basis of Exts.P7 and P8 notices without conducting any proper and legal survey and inspection of the property of the petitioner company and the puramboke land adjacent to the same and conducting a proper enquiry into the issue after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and permitting to adduce evidence to substantiate its claim.W.P.(C) No. 16401/2007 : 2 :
3. To issue writ of mandamus or order or direction or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry in the matter relating to the alleged encroachment in which Exts.P7 and P8 notices are issued, after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and permitting to adduce evidence to substantiate its claim.
4. To issue writ of mandamus or order or direction or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No.4 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and permitting to adduce evidence.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. At the time of admission, this Court passed the following interim order:
"Notice. Further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 shall be taken only after measurement of the property with notice to the petitioner."
Both sides now agree that the writ petition itself can be disposed of in terms of that interim order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said interim order.
sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C) No. 16401/2007 : 3 :