IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 176 of 2009() -------------------- {IN WPC.34001/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- HORMIS JACOB, S/O.JACOB, 62 YEARS R/AT.MATTATHILNEELAKKATTU HOUSE, KURIANAD KARA MONIPALLY, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT DIVISION OFFICE, REST HOUSE COMPUND, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SPECIAL THAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH), REVENUE TOWER, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. KURUVILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUVILANGAD PO., KOTTAYAM-686633. WA.No. 176 of 2009 :: 2 :: 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KURUVILANGAD. 5. FR.DOMINIC(FR.CHACKO), S/O.UTHUP, VELAYAIPARAMBUIL, KURUVILANGAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R4 BY ADV.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN - SC R5 BY ADV.SRI.ANIL GEORGE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.176 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 23th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J. The appellant is stated to be the Manager of M/s.Janatha Offset Press, Kuravilangad, which belongs to one Smt.Ruby Sunny. According to the appellant, he is the power of attorney holder of Smt.Ruby. The printing press is working in a rented building. Smt.Ruby Sunny's father-in-law took the building on rent from the 5th respondent. 2. According to the 5th respondent, it was sold by sale deed dated 14.1.2008 and the appellant was forced to vacate the rented room. It is the contention of the appellant that the above sale deed, if perused, it can be seen that a portion of the sunshade and verandah was included in the building and the appellant has been conducting the offset printing press for a long period. But, after filing the counter affidavit etc. the learned single Judge, modified the interim order and allowed respondents 1 and 2 to demolish that part of the building, which was originally acquired for the 1st respondent. As the land W.A.NO.176/09 :: 2 :: is needed for a public purpose and part of the building is sold, the land owner has got a right to request demolition of the entire building and that such application can be made only by the land owner and not by any other person. If the 5th respondent has submitted a request, the appellant has to abide by the same. 3. In this case, by the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed to demolish only that part of the building which was acquired for the 1st respondent until further orders. We are of the opinion that no interference is required with the above order. However, if the appellant himself demolishes or wants some more time to demolish the same, it is for the appellant to approach the learned single Judge. Writ appeal is disposed of above. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge