IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 8112 of 2004(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.P.KUNHIKOYAMU HAJI, CHITTAKATHU POTTAMMAL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM, THIRUNAVAYA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ROADS & BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-25. 3. C.P.MOIDEEN HAJI, CHITTAKATHU POTTAMMAL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM, THIRUNAVAYA P.O., MALAPPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 8112/04) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL OF THE APPROACH ROAD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 3.4.2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR P.W.D. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ALIGNMENT FIXED FOR THE APPROACH ROAD. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AS EXT.P3 ROAD ALIGNMENT IS FIXED FOR ACQUISITION. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.8112 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd June, 2008 JUDGMENT I disposed of the Writ Petition by the judgment dated 26.5.2004 noticing the stand taken by the requisitioning authority that Ext.P3 is the approved plan and that necessary instructions have been given to the Land Acquisition Officer to have acquisition in terms of Ext.P3 itself. I noticed that the above stand grants to the petitioner the main relief sought for in the Writ Petition, i.e., a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to stick on to the final alignment fixed as per Ext.P3. Later the third respondent filed an application for review and the judgment was recalled. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit raising various grounds of objection against Ext.P3. I am of the view that the third respondent cannot aspire for positive reliefs in this Writ Petition. If the third respondent is aggrieved by Ext.P3, it is for him to initiate fresh proceedings if so advised in that regard. Reiterating the stand taken in my judgment dated 26.5.2004, I dispose of this Writ Petition holding that it is not necessary to issue any direction. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE