IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6311 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.A.SUNNY @ JOSEPH, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 55 YERAS, VELLANIKKRAN HOUSE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.RAJENDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. BY GOVT. PLEADER MISS. K.R..DEEPA ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC, FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 6363 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.6311 (L) & 6363 (U) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent Municipality for construction of a stadium. 2. The contention raised is that going by the Town Planning Scheme, the properties in question are earmarked for agricultural purposes and therefore the construction of the stadium violates the Town Planning Scheme. This submission of the petitioners is made on the basis that the land in question is in Survey No.287/1 of East Chalakkudy Village. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Municipality, what is seen is that although the land in Survey No.287/1 is in agriculture zone, the land belonging to the petitioners is situated in Survey Nos.287/5-B and 287/5-D respectively. It is therefore contended by the Municipality that the contention raised by the petitioners relying on the Town Planning WP(C) Nos.6311 & 6363/2010 -2- Scheme is unsustainable. 4. Ext.P6 in WP(C) No.6311/2010 and Ext.P9 in WP(C) No.6363/2010 are the notices under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act issued to the petitioners respectively. Survey numbers of the properties mentioned in these notices are 287/5-B and 287/5-D respectively. These notices also state that the old survey number of the properties is 287/1. 5. From these itself it is evident that the properties belonging to the petitioners are not a part of Survey No.287/1, which alone is an agriculture zone. If that be the facts, the case pleaded by the petitioners, that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Municipality for setting up a stadium is in agriculture zone, is incorrect. In view of the above, these writ petitions are only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg