IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1459 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32142/2010 Dated 16/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- K.K.MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.K.K.SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, KAKKANTEDATH KARIMBANA ILLAM, VIA. MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR – 670 002. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AIRPORT NO.III, KANNUR-670 002. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), AIRPORT NO.III, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 702. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, TRIVANDRUM – 695 010. R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R5 BY SC SRI.G.S.RAGHUNATH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1459 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the KINFRA. 2. The dispute raised is with regard to the proposed acquisition of 16 cents of land, in which the 'Moolastanam' of the appellant's temple is located. The appellant's case is that the said place is important and regular worship is there and so much so, this portion of land may be excluded from acquisition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no structure or worship in the land as claimed by the appellant and the land is absolutely necessary for the construction of the run way of the Airport. 4. After hearing both sides what we notice is that the appellant has, under an agreement, sold 96 cents of land for the construction of the Airport. Therefore, obviously, the balance land is adjoining the 96 cents of land. The appellant's temple is admitted to be outside the entire property and there is no WA.1459/11 2 proposal to acquire any land with any temple structure. So much so, the dispute is only with regard to an area to which the appellant attaches sanctity with reference to the temple. We do not think that the Airport project can be blocked on account of the involvement of a small extent of land which has some relation to the temple. However, if the disputed land does not form part of the lay out for the Airport, then the respondents can safely exclude the land by avoiding unnecessary acquisition. The Writ Appeal is disposed of by modifying the judgment as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs