2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27002
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JOSE T.M – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) 17181/2016
The court established that adequate notice and hearing are prerequisites for lawful dispossession of property.
Headnote:
Property - Writ Petition - Act Section List - The court ruled on the necessity of due process in property dispossession, emphasizing the requirement for notice and hearing before taking possession of property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to prevent the respondents from taking possession of a property allegedly owned by him and his siblings without proper notice or hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had not followed due process by failing to issue a notice or provide an opportunity for a hearing before attempting to take possession, thus violated legal principles.
Issues: Whether the respondents could take possession of the property without issuing notice and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: Due process requires that property owners must be given sufficient notice and an opportunity for a hearing before any action is taken to dispossess them.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, making the interim order absolute and requiring notice and a hearing prior to any dispossession.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
- “i) To direct the respondents not to take possession and proceed against ¾ cents of property in survey number 10/2 of the Muringoor Thekumuri Village of Mukundapuram Thaluk (presently Chalkkudy Thaluk) of which the petitioner, his brother and sisters are owners by issuing a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order.
- ii) To direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to issue a notice proceed against the property of the petitioner and co-owners after issuing a notice and giving an opportunity of hearing to them by issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.
- iii) To pass such other orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]
- WP(C) NO. 17181 OF 2016
2. Petitioner's mother Thressya had purchased ¾ cents of property in survey No.10/2 of Muringoor Thekumuri Village of Mukundapuram Thaluk (presently Chalkkudy Thaluk) from one Joseph as per sale deed No.506/92 dated 30.01.1992 of Chalakudy Sub Registry for a valid consideration is the submission. It is submitted that the petitioner's mother was in actual ownership, possession and tittle over the property since 1992, till her death. After the death of the mother, aforesaid property is devolved on the petitioner, his brother and sisters is the submission. The petitioner's brother Joy is enjoying 4 ½ cents of landed property adjoining to the aforesaid ¾ cents of property. It is submitted that, both these properties are lying as a single unit with a residential building in it. It is also the case of the petitioner that, he is holding both the properties with the consent of other co- owners.
It is submitted that, on 06.05.2016, the 2nd respondent along with some other people WP(C) NO. 17181 OF 2016 come to the property and informed the petitioner's brothers wife that they are going take possession of the said ¾ cents of property for the reason that it is a poramboke land. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent marked the trees standing in the petitioner's property and informed that they will lay survey stones in the said property. The petitioner was directed to vacate the property. It is the contention of the petitioner that he and other co-owners are in actual ownership, possession and tittle over the property from 1992 onwards.
3. They are also remitting the basic tax on aforesaid ¾ cents of property. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are proceeding against the property without issuing notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. When this writ petition came up for consideration on WP(C) NO. 17181 OF 2016 10.05.2016, this Court passed the following order :
- “ Government Pleader to get instructions.
- Post on 19.5.2016. Till then actual dispossession of the petitioner from the property having an extent of ¾ cents in Survey No. 10/2 of Muringoor Thekumuri Village shall stand stayed.”
6. Thereafter, when the matter came up for consideration on 20.05.2016, the interim order was extended until further orders. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is trying to take possession of the property of the petitioner even without issuing a notice. Such a proceedings is unheard of and cannot be accepted. No counter affidavit is filed in this writ petition by the respondents. Therefore, this writ petition need not be retained here. If the respondents want to take possession of the property, sufficient notice should be given to the petitioner and other co-owners and also sufficient opportunity of hearing should be given to them. With these observations, the interim order dated 10.05.2016 can be made WP(C) NO. 17181 OF 2016 absolute.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
1) The interim order dated 10.05.2016 is made absolute.
2) But I m