Eviction from puramboke land requires adherence to due process, including evidence of public purpose and proper notice, as stipulated by the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P9, P12 and P15 orders.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are as follows.

It is averred that the petitioner along with her three daughters are living in a house in the subject property constructed by the petitioner's mother almost 60 years ago. This property included puramboke land also. Later, the Changanacherry-Vazhoor road was developed, which is in the front of the property. Ext.P1 possession certificate was issued by the 4^th respondent in respect of the unregistered property, wherein it is specifically entered that possession was before 1^st January, 1992 and further that based on this possession certificate, electric connection, ration card, inclusion in the voters' list, all could be applied for, but the property for which Ext.P1 possession certificate is issued if required for any public purpose, the Government is free to evict the petitioner. The registered land which is adjacent to the unregistered land of the petitioner comprised in Re.Sy.No.443 was later on purchased by several persons as small plots. Though they had independent road access to their respective properties, they have started complaining of petitioner's occupation of Ext.P1 property before the various authorities, with a view to gain wider road frontage. Based on their complaint Ext.P4 order was issued stating that the petitioner was in possession of 35 Sq. Mtrs of puramboke land more than one which is approved under Ext.P1 and directed the 6^th respondent to recover the same. The petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order was issued on the assumption that the entire land under the possession of the petitioner was puramboke land. Based on Ext.P5 survey sketch the petitioner would submit that the property includes 85 Sq. Mtrs of Government puramboke land in Sy.No.443 and 23 Sq. Mtrs in Sy.No.442, which is a registered land. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal and the 2^nd respondent conducted a hearing and passed an order on 04.12.2017. Without even communicating the order, the respondents demolished a portion of the petitioner's house on 29.01.2018. Aggrieved by the same Ext.P8 revision was filed. Ext.P9 is the order issued to the petitioner after the revision was filed by the petitioner.

3. But the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 10^th respondent would submit that Ext.R10(c) is the order passed on Ext.P8 revision preferred by the petitioner wherein a direction was issued to evict the petitioner from 35 Sq. Mtrs of the property encroached by the petitioner, whereas a perusal of Ext.P9 order would reveal that the same was on the basis of a complaint preferred by the party respondents on the allegation that the petitioner is in a possession of 85 Sq. Metres of puramboke land over and above the 35 sq. metres, which was ordered to be evicted as per the direction issued by the District Collector. Based on the same Ext.P9 order was issued to evict the petitioner from the 85 Sq. metres of puramboke land which was stated to be in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. It is also stated in Ext.P9 that the petitioner had other properties in his possession and in a portion of the building in Re.Sy.No.443, a meat stall is being conducted and in another portion, an electronic shop is being conducted. Based on the same Ext.P12 show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which Ext.P13 reply was filed and later Ext.P15 order was issued by the 6^th respondent directing the petitioner to vacate the property. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 10^th responde