V. PREMALATHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Writ Petition, four in number, are stated to be the owners of property in Sy.No.476 of East Chalakudy. In the Writ Petition, they are aggrieved by Ext.P20 order passed by the 3 rd respondent under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1967, and the coercive steps that were taken based thereon through Ext.P21 notices issued by the 2nd respondent, for removal of alleged encroachments occasioned by them over puramboke land. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court by a detailed order dated 06.09.2016 found, prima facie, that Ext.P20 order and Ext.P21 notices were hastily issued by the authorities concerned, merely to avoid adverse remarks in Contempt of Court Case Nos.889 and 891 of 2015 that were initiated against them for non-compliance with the directions issued in Ext.P12 judgment of a learned Single Judge. In the interim order aforementioned, a learned Judge of this Court clearly found that the power under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, read with Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, was one that had to be exercised in overwhelming public interest and the power was not to be exercised merely to insulate the respondent statutory authority from adverse remarks in contempt of court proceedings before this Court. A stay of coercive action was accordingly directed by the learned Single Judge pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

(2.) When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Senior counsel Sri.G.Shrikumar would reiterate the submissions made before this Court, as recorded in the interim order dated 06.09.2016. It is in particular pointed out that, pursuant to the survey that was conducted on 22.08.2016, and being dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners had preferred Ext.P18 objection before the

(3.) rd respondent pointing out the defects in the survey conducted, and seeking a fresh survey based on the survey records showing the puramboke lands in the area, and their title deeds which would clearly indicate the lands owned by them and in their possession. It is his submission that the said objections were not taken into account and Ext.P20 order was passed by the 3rd respondent in great haste and Ext.P21 notices thereafter issued by the 2 nd respondent, directing them to remove the alleged encroachment within 48 hours. It is also evident from the record of the proceedings in the instant case that, immediately after service of Ext.P21 notices on the petitioners, certain acts of demolition were also carried out by the respondents, which were noticed by this Court while passing the interim order dated 06.09.2018. 3. I find from the records of the case that W.A.No.1952 of 2016 has since been preferred against the interim order dated 06.09.2016 and while the appeal is admitted and a stay granted on 04.10.2016, there is no interdiction by the appellate court to this Court considering and disposing the Writ Petition itself.