IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37038 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ADLUX PROPERTIES LTD., KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, P.D.SUDHEESAN. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NEW DELHI. 2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR/ PROJECT DIRECTOR, SLAO AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THRISSUR-20. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NHDP UNIT-3, THRISSUR-20. 5. THE KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37038 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is against Ext.P10 notification issued for acquisition of 1120 sq.metres of land belonging to them and situated in Sy.No.35/2/2 of Karukutty Village. The acquisition is for the purpose of providing a bus bay for the public at the place of an existing bus stop in the NH 47, which is proposed to be widened into a 6 lane highway with a uniform right of way of 60 meters. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the land in question, they are developing a “Medicity” consisting of Specialty Hospital, Nursing College, a Convention centre and such other facilities for which they have already obtained sanction and building permits evidenced by Exts.P6 to P9. It is also pointed out that on an earlier occasion, about 2.2 acres was already acquired and that Ext.P10 is the second notification. Petitioner submits that if Ext.P10 materializes, the whole project for developing the “Medicity” will be in jeopardy, and therefore, they have filed Ext.P11 objection to the notification. It is stated that although pursuant to Ext.P12 notice, they were heard, acquisition WPC 37038/09 :2 : proceedings are continued and therefore the writ petition is filed with the main prayer to exclude the property of the petitioner from the process of acquisition. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, the property is required to be acquired for providing a bus bay in the place of an existing bus stop. It is stated that the alternate suggestion made by the petitioner is not practical and that as a concession to the petitioner, they can shift the location of the bus bay by a few meters north or south in the same survey number and sub division without severely affecting the Medicity Project. It is stated that in any case, pursuant to Exts.P11 and P12, the petitioner was heard by the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has not taken any final decision in the matter for the reason that this writ petition is pending. From the aforesaid pleadings filed by the 2nd respondent, it is evident that the 3rd respondent is seized of the objections raised by the petitioner, and therefore at this stage, it is premature for this Court to enter into the merits of the controversies raised. Therefore, leaving it open to the 3rd respondent to decide on Ext.P11, this writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp