CHATHOLI NAFEESA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The material contentions raised in the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner's father had surrendered an extent of 1.5 cents of land for digging a public well, for the purpose of drinking water. According to the petitioner, the well is not used by the public for the last 15 years and now it is used as a waste dumping pit. Thereupon petitioner submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent, ie. Director of the panchayaths stating that the public well in the land given by her father as free of cost is not used by the public for the last 15 years, and if the said land is given back to her by the Panchayat, she is willing to give another suitable land for the purpose of a drinking water project. It is also the case of the petitioner that, after detailed consideration, a unanimous decision was taken by the 3 rd respondent and Ext.P9 order passed by the 1 st respondent on 18.2.2014, permitting to exchange the land by and between the parties. It is also the case of the petitioner that, Ext.P10 relinquishment letter is also provided for the alternate property given by the petitioner and in accordance with the directions issued by the Panchayat, differential value of Rs.24,400/- was also deposited evident from Ext.P11. The immediate grievance put forth by the petitioner is that, all on a sudden, without hearing the petitioner, Ext.P13 order dated 2.12.2015 is passed by the State Government cancelling Ext.P9. The sole relief sought for by the petitioner is, reconsideration of the matter, after setting aside Ext.P13 order.

(3.) 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the stand adopted by the State Government in Ext.P13. It is also pointed out that the people of the locality were using the well for the past several years and now a lesser value plot is being accepted for re-conveying the property, given by the petitioner. Any how, one thing is clear from Ext.P13, that the decision was taken by the State Government without hearing the petitioner. 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, predominantly contending that the applicable rules does not empower exchange of properties. Any how, the contentions raised in the counter affidavits may not have much relevance, since learned senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is bad for want of hearing, which is not under dispute at all.