The obligation of authorities to fairly consider objections to encroachment notices before proceeding with their enforcement.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P11 order, wherein the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment upon the property owned by the Irrigation Department.

2. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner in possession of 15 cents of property obtained as per Ext.P1 deed and property tax was paid as evident from Ext.P2 and the land tax was also remitted by the petitioner as evident from Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer, Cheruvannur. In the said property the petitioner constructed a residential building after obtaining a loan from the bank. There exists a canal on the northern side of the petitioner's property and for constructing a culvert across the canal, the petitioner had obtained Ext.P7 permission from the Executive Engineer, KYIP Division, Perambra. While so, Ext.P10 notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to remove the encroachment upon the property of the Irrigation Department. A further notice, Ext.P11 was also issued. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court contending that there is no instance of any encroachment as stated in Exts.P10 and P11.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. After hearing both sides, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. Ext.P11 shall be treated as a notice to which the petitioner shall file necessary objections before the 4^th respondent within a period of three weeks.

2. If such objections are filed, further proceedings shall be taken by the 4^th respondent only after considering objections and the documents produced by the petitioner in this regard.

3. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order granted by this Court on 06.10.2021 will continue.