IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 1546 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

PADMAKUMARI, AGED 66 YEARS, D/O GOURIKUTTY AMMA, MANJU VILLA, KARAKKAL P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN – 689108 BY ADVS.

P.VINODKUMAR PARVATHI VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS:

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689645

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVALLA, O/O THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN – 689101

3 RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS MAZHUVANCHERI THEKKETHIL, KARAKKAL P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN – 689108

4 SUJA RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS MAZHUVANCHERI THEKKETHIL, KARAKKAL P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN - 689108 SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Ext.P1, solely on the ground that she was not heard before it was issued.

2. Sri.Vinod Kumar P. - learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, had the 2^nd respondent – Sub Collector heard his client, she would have been able to bring to the notice of the said Authority, the truth regarding the decree in O.S.No.73/1996 – which has been relied upon therein, particularly the fact that an Appeal has been preferred and that certain other events have also been transpired thereafter. He asserted that, however, it is behind his client’s back, that the 2^nd respondent has passed Ext.P1, purportedly relying upon the decree of the Civil Court; and therefore, that the said order is illegal and unlawful.

3. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, responded to the afore saying that, apart from the fact that the petitioner has been heard - which is evident from Ext.P1, the 2^nd respondent could not have acted in contravention of the decree is O.S.No.73/1996. He submitted that, therefore, the said order suffers from no vice.

4. Prima facie, I am in favour of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader because, Ext.P1 records that the petitioner has been heard. However, since the petitioner says that she was not given such an opportunity; and this, thus becoming a disputation of fact, I am of the view that the matter must be directed to be reconsidered by the 2^nd respondent, not because I conclusively find error in Ext.P1, but solely to ensure that fairness in procedure is maintained.

5. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the 2^nd respondent can hear the parties again; but prayed that no affirmative declarations in favour of the petitioner be made at this juncture. Taking note of the afore submissions and for the reasons above, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P1; with a consequential direction to the petitioner to appear before the 2^nd respondent – Sub Collector, at 11 A.M. on 30.01.2024; on which day, the said Authority will hear her and post the matter for hearing the other parties; thus culminating in an appropriate order/necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months thereafter.

Needless to say, I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions and all of them are left open.

I reiteratingly clarify that the contents of Ext.P1 have not been assessed by this Court on its merits, in any manner whatsoever.

Sd/-

RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1546/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN C2 4595/2016 DATED 1-03-

2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PGR CELL NO

724/19 DT 1/3/19.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATE 12/3/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.