JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 notice and Ext.P5 survey sketch. Based on Ext.P5 survey sketch the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 notice under Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rule.

2. As per the averment in the writ petition, the petitioner is in ownership of 2.88 Ares of property in Sy.No.137/2 of Pullazhi Village and a building bearing Nos.10/160/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Thrissur Corporation. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 eviction notice under the Land Conservancy Rules alleging that the petitioner has encroached Government Puramboke land. The petitioner had on receipt Ext.P4 notice made enquiries and it was learnt that the 4th respondent has allegedly conducted a survey in Olari-Pullazhi Road and noted certain encroachments and Ext.P5 is the photocopy of the encroachment sketch of Olari-Pullazhi Road issued by the 4th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P5 survey is not properly conducted and the petitioner and other locals were not notified and they are not aware of any such survey that has taken place. It is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P4 notice based on Ext.P5 survey sketch that the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that similar cases have been considered by this Court and the learned counsel handed over to me a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1288 of 2022 dated 06.04.2022 and contended that he is also entitled for a similar relief since in W.P.(C) No.1288 of 2022 also the issue was with regard to the survey of the very same Olari- Pullazhi road.

3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. As against Ext.P5 survey sketch prepared pursuant to a survey conducted by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy to challenge the same under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules and that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into the assessment of the various factual and documentary materials and inputs as are requested and it is for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy to challenge Ext.P5 as per the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules. As regard Ext.P4 notice is concerned which is alleged to be issued invoking Rule 13A of the Land Conservancy Rules, it is the contention of the petitioner that no final order under Section 12 of the Land Conservancy Act has been issued. Even though Rule 13A of the Land Conservancy Rules authorizes the Revenue Authorities to dispense with the procedure under Section 12 of the Land Conservancy Act, it is well settled that the provisions of a statute cannot be overridden by the provisions of the Rules which is only a Subordinate Legislation and therefore, the competent authorities are obliged to act as per the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act. Therefore, I feel that Ext.P4 notice shall be treated only as a preliminary one and the petitioner should be granted liberty to file objection to it so that necessary action under Section 12 of the Land Conservancy Act can be completed in terms of law.

In view of the same, the above writ petition is disposed of with following directions:

(a) the contest of the petitioner against Ext.P5 survey sketches and reports are left without being considered on its merits by this Court; with liberty being reserved to him to approach the competent Authorities under the Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules. For this purpose, all his contentions with respect to the said issue are left open to be impelled and pursued by him as per law.

(b) As far as the impugned notice evidenced by Ext.P4 issued under Rule 13A of the “LC Rules” is concerned, it will be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner will be at liberty to file objections to the same; and if this is done so within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the competent Authority will hear him and examine his objections thus leading to ap