The absence of prior notice mandated by law negates the enforceability of encroachment notices.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 notice issued by the 1^st respondent which has been issued without a an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

2. Petitioner is the owner and occupier of the property having an extent of 3 Ares and 0.64 sq mtrs which was transferred by the petitioner’s father in the name of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 document of 2013. There is a shopping complex existing in the said building, wherein a restaurant is being run by the petitioner and other business concerns. Petitioner has been paying tax in respect of said building as evident from Ext.P2. The said shopping complex is situated just adjacent to Wandoor – Nilambur road on the eastern side. Petitioner had certain dispute with autorikshaw employees union regarding the unauthorised parking of autorikshaws in front of the petitioner’s shopping complex. While so, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner intimating that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land, and directed the petitioner to evict the encroachment within a period of seven days. The specific case of the petitioner is that no prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the respondent has straight away issued Ext.P5 directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment. Petitioner would further contend that in Ext.P5 even the extent of encroachment or the survey number of the properties alleged to have been encroached by the petitioner has not been stated at all. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. I have heard the rival contentions of the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, and the learned Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent Panchayat.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that no prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as mandated as per the provisions of the Highway Protection Act , 1999, and that even in Ext.P5 notice there is no mention regarding the extent of land encroached by the petitioner or the survey number of the property which is alleged to have been encroached by the petitioner. In the light of the above, I am inclined to interfere, and accordingly Ext.P5 order is set aside. It is made clear that the competent authority under the respondent will be free to issue fresh proceedings strictly in compliance with the provisions of the , 1999, and the observations made above.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-