IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19319 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.P.K.VIJAYACHANDRAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, VILLA 18, SKYLINE QUEEN PARK, KEERTHI NAGAR ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VAZHUTHAKKAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19319 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of some property in Muttathara village. By Ext. P1 order, the Government accorded sanction to the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority for acquisition of 10 acres of land including the above property for establishment of a truck terminal. That order was passed on 15-9-1995. Since nothing was done for years, the petitioner wanted to make constructions in the property. Therefore, the petitioner and others approached this Court by filing W.P(C).No. 6472/2008 in which, by Ext. P2 judgment, the 1st respondent was directed to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner and others to enable them to undertake construction work and other activities in the properties covered by Ext. P1 Government Order, which has already lapsed. Pursuant thereto, the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority issued no objection certificate to the petitioner which is Ext. P3, with the condition that the no objection certificate would not stand in the way of the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority acquiring the land for any purpose, after issuing fresh notification in accordance with law. Thereafter, by Ext. P4, the 1st respondent decided to approach the Government to seek acquisition of 8.15 acres of land for construction of the truck terminal. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P5 notice dated 5-1-2010 was issued to the petitioner intimating the petitioner of the decision of the 1st respondent to request the Government to acquire 8.15 acres of land, which apparently includes the petitioner's property also. The petitioner challenges Ext. P5 notice on the ground that after having suffered Ext. P2 judgment, the 1st respondent cannot again seek to acquire the land of the petitioner. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st W.P.C. No. 19319/2010. -: 2 :- respondent. 3. I do not think that the petitioner can validly challenge the decision of the 1st respondent to request the Government to acquire land for construction of a truck terminal insofar as construction of a truck terminal is for a public purpose and therefore the request of the 1st respondent for acquisition of the land is for a public purpose. There is nothing in Ext. P2 judgment which would disable the 1st respondent or the Government taking the course of action as stated in Exts. P4 and P5. All what the petitioner can hope for is compensation for the land together with compensation for any construction thereon as per the new acquisition proposed. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.