J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in these cases, have approached this Court impelling a proximate cause of action, that they have been issued with notices under Form C of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. I do not propose to speak in detail about the various allegations, assertions and averments in these cases because, the entire action now initiated against the petitioners are based on the assertion by the official respondents that a survey of the area was conducted in terms of the directions of this Court in the judgment in W.P. (C)No.17154/2013 - a copy of which is on record as Ext.P5 along with W.P.(C)No.17138/2020; while the petitioners say that they were not aware of any such survey having been conducted, nor were they issued with any notice pursuant thereto under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), and therefore, that even if it has been done, it is in flagrant violation of the specific directions in the aforementioned judgment.

3. Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases – which have been heard together and are being disposed of jointly on account of the analogous factual circumstances pleaded and reliefs sought for – says that the entire impugned action have no legs to stand on legally, because no survey was conducted by the competent Authorities inspite of the directions of this Court in the aforementioned judgment, which is manifest from the fact that none of his clients were issued with any notice under the Rules, nor favoured with a completion report under Rule 51 thereof. He submitted that, therefore, the impugned action deserves to be set aside by this Court because it had been done in violation of the directions of this Court in the aforementioned judgment in W.P.(C)No.17154/2013, which mandated that any such could have been done only with notice to 'all concerned'. He argued that, therefore, even if a survey had been done, now alleged by the official respondents, its rigour cannot be applied against the petitioners and therefore, that the impugned notices now issued, are without legal worth and thus liable to be set aside.

4. In response, the learned Government Pleader - Smt.Resmi Thomas, submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent producing therewith all the details of the survey conducted, as also the various notices issued to the petitioners subsequent thereto, including under Forms A, B and C of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules. She argued that this Court had, in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17154/2013, left liberty to the competent Authority to conduct a survey, which was done, and in which it was found that the petitioners have encroached into Government 'Canal Puramboke' land. She submitted that, on such basis, the 4th respondent prepared a list of encroachments and the petitioners - who were included therein, were issued with Exts.R4(a), R4(b), R4(c), R4(d) and R4(f) notices in Form A, along with Sketch and Mahazar prepared by the Village Officer and that it is only pursuant thereto, when the petitioners were unable to provide any cogent objections to the same, had they been issued with the impugned Form C notices. She therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed, particularly because the petitioners are now in continued occupation of Government land, which cannot be allowed in future.

5. As I have begun the judgment, any evaluation of the rival contentions of the parties on its merits would become necessary only if this Court is convinced that the survey stated to have been done by the official respondents had been completed in terms of law and as per the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17154/2013.

6. As rightly stated by Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Judge, who disposed of the afore judgment, had made it clear that the survey can be conducted only after 'notice to all concerne