Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
T.J.UTHUPPU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35844 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: GP SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON
The necessity for fair hearing in administrative actions affecting property rights was upheld, ensuring no coercive action without due process.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the notices issued by the authorities regarding the alleged encroachment and sought a hearing before actions were taken against his property. The court emphasized the need to consider the petitioner's reply and afford an opportunity to be heard before enforcement of the notices. The interim order against the notices was maintained pending review. The relevant law includes the Land Conservancy Act, 1957.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to notices regarding alleged encroachment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's obligation to consider petitioner's response and maintain interim order. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P4, P6, P7 and P8. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to consider Ext.P5 reply submitted the petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing before enforcing Exts.P4, P6, P7 and P8.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is the proprietor of a jewellery shop at Adimaly in Idukki District and that the building in which the jewellery is functioning was constructed as early as in 1998 and is facing a road vested on Rajakumary Grama Panchayat. Petitioner has made some beautification to the existing building by placing aluminium composite panels. Thereupon 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to surrender some portion of the property for widening the road and for constructing a bell mouth in the junction. Due to the non- compliance of the request of the respondent to surrender the land by the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P4 notice directing to demolish a portion of the ACP roofs and board of the petitioner alleging that the same is constructed against the road safety and the future development of the road. Petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply to the same. Since the petitioner was threatened with coercive action, he has approached this Court filing this writ petition.
3. When the matter came up for consideration on
09.11.2022, this Court has passed an interim order staying the operation of the notices impugned herein.
4. Learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that in Ext.P4 notice direction was issued only to remove the ACP roof and board newly put in by the petitioner as it is encroaching upon the carriage way of the road and that is why Ext.P4 notice was issued.
Petitioner has a specific case that the ACP roof and board installed by the petitioner is not encroaching into the carriage way as contended by the respondents and Ext.P5 reply to that effect has been submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that before proceeding further with Ext.P4 and other notices impugned in this writ petition, Ext.P5 reply submitted by the petitioner shall be duly considered, after affording an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to proceed further with Ext.P4, P6, P7 and P8 only after considering Ext.P5 reply submitted by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order granted by this Court will continue. If, after a proper survey, it is found that there is any encroachment of any puramboke by the petitioner, necessarily proceedings could be initiated by the authorities as per the relevant law including the Land Conservancy Act , 1957.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
