AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to answer the queries posed by them in Exts.P7 and P8, particularly as to whether they have any intention to acquire their property and as to how they can impose an embargo against its alienation by them, if there is any such.
The afore request of the petitioner, made by their learned counsel Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, was answered by the the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable C.Kurian, saying that it is for respondents 2 and 3 to reply to the petitioners and that the State of Kerala and its functionaries had no role to play, particularly because the proposal is one which is propounded by the Municipality.
Unfortunately, the endorsements on file reveal that even though summons from this Court have been validly served on respondents 2 and 3, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in opposition to the various reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the competent among respondents 2 and 3 to immediately take up Exts.P7 and P8 and hear the petitioners, thus culminating in an appropriate proceedings and action thereon - particularly with respect to the allegation of the petitioners that their property has not been acquired, but an embargo of alienation imposed against it, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
For the afore purpose, I direct the petitioners to mark appearance before the third respondent – Secretary of the Municipality, along with the certified copy of this judgment, at 11 a.m. on 25.03.2022.