C MOLLY KARIVILA VEEDU Vs. TAHSILDAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P (c) No.13294/2010 and also against the order in the MJC No.300/2012 which was also dismissed leaving open freedom to the appellant to file Review petition. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and also Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6.

(2.) WRIT petition was filed by the appellant against the threat of eviction from her homestead without providing alternate accommodation. The single judge on being satisfied about prima facie case granted stay against eviction vide interim order in the writ petition dated 24-04- 2010. There was a specific direction that the appellant shall not be evicted without providing alternate accommodation. While the interim order was in force the writ petition got listed in the defect list for the reason that 7th respondent was not served notice. The finding of the learned single judge is that inspite of an opportunity given by the registry steps were not taken for serving notice on the 7th respondent. Unfortunately on the date of posting of the case in the defect list on 3rd April 2012 the counsel for the appellant did not appear. Therefore, WRIT petition was dismissed not on the merits nor on defect, but on ground of non-prosecution. Even though a restoration application was filed it was dismissed by the single Judge holding that remedy if any against the dismissal of writ petition is a review petition. It is against the judgment dismissing the writ petition and against the order in MJC this writ appeal is filed. The appellant's counsel submitted that the 7th respondent's Standing counsel had taken notice in writ petition and so much so the defect was non-existent. We find force in this contention raised, because on verifying the cause title of the judgment in writ petition produced it is seen that one Adv. Sri. Ram Mohan G. has appeared for the 7th respondent. We are told that there is a change of standing counsel as of now for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Appellant's grievance is against eviction from the puramboke land which is near to an industrial estate in Thiruvananthapuram. It is not known whether there is any major role for the Thiruvanathapuram Corporation to play in this matter because relief was sought against State Government for rehabilitation before eviction. The factual position about appearance of 7th respondent itself is contested by the appellant and so much so the learned single judge rightly took the view that a review is the remedy and not the MJC filed by the appellant. However, we feel even if relief can be granted in review proceeding still since the appeal is maintainable we have to consider merits of the case and grant eligible relief to the appellant.