IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 18 of 2009() ------------------- {IN WPC.30718/2007 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, P.W.D. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.T.PROJECT, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A N.H) RANNI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- K.K.DANIEL, KODAKERIL, THOLASSERY P.O., THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 0N 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.No.18 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT GIRI, J. State has come up in appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, partly allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, claiming compensation for 69 sq.m., which he claimed, belonged to him, but was taken possession of by the State, without paying him compensation. 2. The writ petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 75 years and is also a physically handicapped, by reason of the fact that he is deaf and dumb. It seems that his wife is also deaf and dumb. 3. The writ petitioner was in possession of 15.5 cents of land lying by the side of M.C.Road, at Thiruvalla. Admittedly, an extent of 1.25 cents of land was acquired for widening the M.C.Road in the year 1973. It is also not disputed that by Ext.P3 Sale deed bearing No.3186/05 of the W.A.NO.18/09 :: 2 :: Thiruvalla Sub Registry Office, an additional extent of 48 sq.m. of land was conveyed in favour of the respondents by the petitioner. According to the petitioner,t his left 69 sq.m. of land sandwiched between the aforementioned 48 sq.m and the road margin. He claimed that apart from taking possession of 48 sq.m of land conveyed under Ext.P7 sale deed, the respondents also took possession of the aforementioned 69 sq.m of land lying immediately adjacent thereto and this was done without paying any compensation to the petitioner. 4. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner was in ownership and possession of 15.5 cents of land as per Ext.P4 sale deed and that admittedly 1.25 cents of land out of the same was acquired in the year 1973. Learned single Judge further took note of the fact that the respondents are estopped from disputing the petitioner's title to the entirety of the land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, having taken Ext.P7 sale deed from the petitioner for 48 sq.m of land. In circumstances where the W.A.NO.18/09 :: 3 :: M.C.Road was widened at that spot, by acquiring 1.25 cents of land from the petitioner and further where the respondents have purchased 48 Sq.m of land from the petitioner as recently as in 2005 vide Ext.P7 sale deed, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the disputed area of 69 sq.m of land lying between the 48 sq.m of property purchased under Ext.P7 sale deed and the road margin, should be treated as part of the registered holding of the petitioner and covered by Ext.P4 title deed. The learned Judge came to this conclusion on a reference to Ext.P2 report and sketch, among other documents. The learned Judge has gone into meticulous details of the lie of the land and the materials placed on record. The learned Judge has also given sufficient and cogent reasons as to why the petitioner, a senior citizen aged 75 years, and a deaf and dumb person, who is further handicapped by the fact that his wife is also a deaf and dumb, should not be now relegated to the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act. W.A.NO.18/09 :: 4 :: We fully concur with the reasoning given by the learned single Judge as also the findings and directions of the learned single Judge issued in this behalf. We see no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge