IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12287 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M.C.INDIRA, D/O. M.C. NANDINI AMMA RESIDING AT CHALIL THAZHATH KOVOOR DESOM,NELLIKKODE VILLAGE KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. M.C. SATHY, D/O.M.C. NANDINI AMMA RESIDING AT CHALIL THAZHATH KOVOOR DESOM,NELLIKKODE VILLAGE KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SMT.T.LAKSHMI SRI.SANEESH KUMAR K RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE 2. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI ADV.SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC, KSHB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 12287 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioners whose properties were acquired at the instance of the second respondent Housing Board for the purpose of construction of residential buildings for allotment to landless persons is that the second respondent without constructing residential buildings on the acquired properties is now intending to assign the properties to third parties as plots after receiving market value from them. According to the petitioners, the second respondent is not entitled to assign the property to others and since the very purpose of the land acquisition has not been achieved, the petitioners pray that the plot should be assigned to them upon their paying the correct market value. Ext.P2 representation has been submitted by them before the District Collector in this regard. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.A.Balagopalan, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Ramachandran Nair, standing counsel for the WPC.No.12287/08 2 second respondent and Sri.Basanth Balaji, Government Pleader, for the first respondent. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would address me very persuasively on the various grounds raised in the writ petition, as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel, the issue is covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. and Another v. Syed Akbar ( 2005(1) SCC 558). The land acquisition proceedings have become complete and the property has now become the absolute property of the second respondent. The present proposal of the second respondent is concededly to assign the property to other landless persons. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. and Another v. Syed Akbar, this writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.12287/08 2