IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 37375 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROY JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.CHARLEY JOSEPH, THOTTATHIL VEETTIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 033. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION NO.II), KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.37375 of 2009 (N) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against land acquisition proceedings. 2. At the time, when the writ petition initially came up for orders before this Court on 23/12/2009, the learned single judge passed the following order:- “Prima facie this writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the Division Bench judgment, since award has already been passed. Not only that, the plea of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 contradicts Ext.P3. Ext.P2 is of 2007 and Ext.P3 is of 2009. For instructions, post after Christmas holidays.” The case came up thereafter on 15/01/2010 and 04/02/2010 and on both occasions, at the instance of the petitioner, the case was adjourned, and today again request for adjournment is repeated. In my view, for the reasons stated in the order dated 23/12/2009 itself, this writ petition has to fail. In such circumstances, the prayer sought in the writ petition for quashing Ext.P2 notification at this distance of time and consequential relief WP(C) No.37375/2009 -2- does not arise for consideration. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg