IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34527 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL VAHID ALNUHASI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.T.M.A LATHEEF, RESIDING AT THALASSERY HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 687. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.ASHKAR SMT.ASHIRA MOHAMED ASHROF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA GENERAL, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.34527 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P5 as orders by the Government according administrative sanction for invocation of the emergency provisions for acquisition of land for rehabilitating Tsunami victims. As rightly pointed out the learned Government Pleader Ext.P4 has been modified by Ext.P5. 2. Sri.K.K.Ashkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Krishan Lal Arneja & others ( AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3582) and Ext.P6 CAG report that there has been lethargy on the part of the state government in utilising the funds identified under the scheme for Disaster Management and such lethargy cannot now be made a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) which will result in depriving the owners of land of a valuable right they have got under Section 5A. Not that I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned WPC.No. 34527/08 2 counsel: but I find that in this case the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner which is also referred to in Ext.P5 is not under challenge. Land Revenue Commissioner is the competent authority for dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A. Leaving open the right and remedy of the petitioner to challenge the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, I dispose of this writ petition without examining the merits of the grounds. However, there will be a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner of his properties ( if dispossession has not already been taken place) for a period of two weeks from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No. 34527/08 2