Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
BIPIN JOPAUL PADAYATTIL – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROADS SUB DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25579 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For the Respondents: GP NIMA JACOB
A notice lacking essential details cannot justify encroachment claims, ensuring fair legal recourse for property owners.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the notice issued under Section 11(2) of the Land Conservancy Act regarding alleged encroachment on the property. The notice is deemed invalid as it lacked necessary details, thus impeding the petitioner's ability to respond. The court sets aside the notice but allows for fresh proceedings according to law. "The writ petition is disposed of as above."
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property owner challenges a faulty notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court sets aside invalid notice. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 notice.
2. It is contended that the petitioner is the co-owner of a property having an extent of 0.85 ares comprised in Sy.No.408/12 in Block No.26, Re.Sy.No.346/3/1 of Kalady Village along with the residential building situated therein. On 15.10.2020, some persons under the leadership of respondents 1 and 2 demolished the compound wall of the house of petitioner with the help of excavators and the petitioner was informed that a portion of the house is encroaching into the Government puramboke. The petitioner submits that the said allegation is without any basis, inasmuch as the property was purchased in the year 2007 and after the purchase, no encroachment was made by the petitioner or his father. On enquiry it was revealed that a notice has been affixed on the wall of the residential building, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner submits that the said notice did not contain any details regarding the property including the name and address of the owner, nature of the alleged construction and not even a date, though the said notice is stated to have been issued invoking the power under Section 11 (2) of the Land Conservancy Act . It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. A perusal of Ext.P2 notice would reveal that it is a printed notice, without filling up any of the relevant columns and without giving any details of the encroachment etc. Since such a notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner will not be able to file any reply or understand the nature or extent of the alleged encroachment. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside. Setting aside of Ext.P2 will not stand in the way of the authorities from taking fresh proceedings against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
