P M JALAJA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Exts.P18 and P19. Ext.P18 is an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on Ext.P14 appeal filed by the petitioner in a proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Ext.P19 is a consequential order issued by the Secretary of the Corporation, calling upon the petitioner to vacate from the Puramboku land in her occupation.

(2.) THIS litigation has a long history. Petitioner's husband, late Sri.C.N.Balakrishnan, made an application for a building permit to the 5th respondent for constructing a residential house in the property in Survey No.980 of Division No.26 of Elamkulam Village. On that application, Ext.P2 building permit was granted on 19.06.1999. Accordingly, a building was constructed. Exts.P3, P4 and P5 are the receipts for payment of property tax, ration card, and electricity bill, all in respect of the aforesaid building.

(3.) AT that stage, petitioner filed writ petition No.4586/2009 challenging Exts.P7 and P9. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing that Exts.P7 and P9 will be treated as notices, that it will be open to the petitioner to file her replies to the notices and that once replies are so filed, she will be heard and orders will be passed. It was also directed that until a decision is taken as above, she shall not be evicted from the property in question. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 objections. While the Tahsildar was thus seized of the issue, the 6th respondent herein filed R.P.No.453/2009 seeking review of Ext.P10 judgment on the ground that in pursuance to Ext.P8 notice, the petitioner appeared for hearing on 12.01.2009 and that she had not disclosed the said fact in the writ petition. Accepting the said contention, the review petition was allowed by Ext.P12 order and the writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2500/- and leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available to her. Though, Writ Appeal No.2025/2009 was filed by the petitioner against Ext.P12 order, that was dismissed by Ext.P13 judgment.