IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18917 of 2010(O) -------------------------- LA.4371/2010 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.C.THOMAS, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, KOMBAZHA DESOM, PANANCHERI PANCHAYAT, PEECHI, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ROBSON PAUL SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THRISSUR-20. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI B JAYASURYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18916 OF 2010 WPC NO. 18905 OF 2010 WPC NO. 18904 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.No.18917 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE the MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P2 : ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR HAND WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy P.A. To Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.Nos.18904, 18905, 18916 and 18917 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners in these writ petitions filed suits before learned Munsiff, Thrissur seeking a decree for mandatory injunction to direct respondents reassess compensation payable to them pursuant to the acquisition of their properties after properly ascertaining the improvements in the said properties. Learned Munsiff passed the impugned orders (separate order in each case) stating that the suits are for valuation of improvements made in the acquired land meant for development of the national highway, petitioners have not challenged acquisition but wanted to take notice of value of improvements and thus there is no cause of action for the suits. Holding so the plaint were rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Those separate orders are challenged in these writ petitions. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the order is per say illegal in that unlike in the Kerala Land Acquisition Act there is no bar of suit except after a declaration is made by the Central Government under subsection 1 of section 3 of the National Highways Act 1956 (for short, “the Act”). Learned W.P.C.Nos.18904, 18905, 18916 and 18917 of 2010 : 2 : counsel also stated about the various steps acquisition authorities are required to take for determination of compensation payable to the land owners. It is the contention of learned counsel that unlike in the case of the Kerala or the Central Land Acquisition Act parties are not being supplied with a copy of mahazar if any prepared by the authorities concerned and that a copy of the award is also not being supplied to the party, the result being that he is kept at dark as to what is happening in the matter of assessment of compensation. These aspects have not been taken into account by the learned Munsiff while rejecting the plaint. Learned Government Pleader who took notice for the respondents in these writ petitions contended that the Central Government has appointed District Collector concerned as arbitrator for deciding on disputes and that properties involved in these cases come within the jurisdiction of that authority. 2. I have heard learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for petitioner on entertaining these writ petitions when the petitioners have the statutory remedy of filing appeals. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code amounts to a decree as defined in Section 2(2) of the Code and hence is appealable to the court to which appeals should lie from the decree that may be passed in the case. Learned counsel for petitioners argued at length that the order under challenge is per W.P.C.Nos.18904, 18905, 18916 and 18917 of 2010 : 3 : se illegal and the parties need not be driven to the statutory remedy as this court has the authority to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. After arguing the matter at length learned counsel has sought permission to withdraw these writ petitions without prejudice to the statutory remedies available to the petitioners. In the facts and circumstance of the case I am inclined to grant permission sought for. Resultantly these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioners to seek remedy either under the Code or any other law in force as are available to them in the matter. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-