IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 416 of 2009(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- LATHIKA RAGHU, MATHENA PARAMBIL, MANJUMMEL, ELOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS DGM & PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, 29/1298 A, MANGALYA VALIYA MADOM, VYTTILA, KOCHI -19. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) ICTT, VALLARPADOM, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. THOMAS ANTONY. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 416 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th January, 2009. J U D G M E N T A part of petitioner's property was acquired for widening a road. There was a building in the property. Although only a part of the building was acquired in the property acquired, the petitioner opted to get the entire building acquired and received compensation for the same. Consequently, he became liable to demolish the whole building. But after receiving compensation, he took a stand that he will demolish only that part of the building, which stands in the acquired property. This was not acceded to by the National Highway Authority of India for whom the property was acquired. Accordingly, by Ext. P3, they directed the petitioner to demolish the entire building with a warning that if the building is not demolished by the petitioner, the same would be demolished by the National Highway Authority of India, in which case the charges and expenses would be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 order in this writ petition. I do not think that after having opted to receive compensation for the entire building, the petitioner can now take a stand that he will demolish only that part of the building situated in the acquired property. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.