The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 4th respondent. By Ext.P2 the petitioner has been directed to remove the occupation of public place.
2. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the petitioner has encroached upon public place and constructed a boundary wall. Petitioner’s case is that a civil suit is pending where injunction is granted against the party respondent. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Payyoli, in civil suit. However, it is seen from Ext.P2 itself that the petitioner was not heard before the issuance of Ext.P2. If proceedings are initiated against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Act, Ext.P2 shall be treated as show cause notice and only after adverting to petitioner’s W.P.(C) No. 31795/2014 -2-
objection, further steps shall be taken in this matter.
3. Petitioner's case is that the construction is in his own property and Ext.P2 order is passed without identifying the property of the petitioner. In view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the respondents to treat Ext.P2 as a show cause notice and after hearing the petitioner, a final order shall be passed. If necessary, property shall be identified with reference to the title deed of the petitioner. Needful shall be done within a period of two months. Till then status quo shall continue.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jjj