IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36185 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.ABDUL ASHRUF, AGED 44, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.RAINBOW PHOTO EXPRESS, POKKAKKILLATH HOUSE, ARIYANNUR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, NEAR CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SLAO, KODUNGALLUR BYE PASS, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 624. 3. NASEEMA, AGED 50, W/O.SIDDIQUE, KARUKAPPADATH UDUMAN CHALIL, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 664. *ADDL.R4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * (IMPLEADED ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 06/12/2010 IN I.A.NO.16919/2010) MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.THOMAS ANTONY KALLAMPILLY, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36185 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the managing partner of a partnership firm running a hotel in the premises belonging to the third respondent. The site of the building was acquired by the National Highway Authorities for the purpose of the Kodungalloor bye pass. After the acquisition proceedings were initiated, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 claim petition before the second respondent claiming payment of the sum of Rs.Seven lakhs as compensation on the ground that he has invested large amounts in the building situated in the land proposed to be acquired. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 32089 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 10.11.2009, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 and decide it along with other similar claims after affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned. The petitioner states that though thereafter Ext.P6 notice was issued calling upon him to appear on 13.1.2010 and he appeared before the second respondent, till date, the decision taken on Ext.P4 has not been communicated to him. It is stated even before the decision on WPC No.36185/2010 2 Ext.P4 is communicated, steps have been taken to demolish the building and to evict him from the tenanted premises. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the second respondent to communicate the order if any passed on Ext.P4 claim petition and not to demolish the shop room without giving him an opportunity to seek appropriate remedies against the third respondent. 2. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that th petitioner is the tenant of a building, the entirety of which will be demolished by the respondents for the reason that it is situated in the land acquired by them for the Kodungaloor bye pass. As a tenant of the building, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation. The petitioner's grievance is that he had invested large amounts in the restaurant run by him and that unless he is compensated, he will be put to serious loss. However, in this writ petition, he only wants the demolition of the building stayed till he is in a position to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the third respondent. The third respondent is not responsible for initiating the land acquisition proceedings. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree with the petitioner that he has any right to move the civil court claiming damages from the third respondent. If the petitioner has WPC No.36185/2010 3 effected any improvements to the building or has installed fittings and fixtures, he can claim only a right to dismantle and remove them. Faced with that situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the demolition of the building has commenced, the petitioner may be granted a reasonable time to dismantle and remove the fittings and fixtures. The learned Govt. Pleader and the learned standing counsel did not oppose the said request. In such circumstances even while dismissing the writ petition, I direct respondents 1, 2 and 4 to permit the petitioner to dismantle and remove the fittings and fixtures in the tenanted premises owned by the third respondent. The respondents shall give the petitioner one week's time from today to dismantle and remove the fittings and fixtures and to facilitate it, the demolition of the building shall be kept in abeyance till then. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.36185/2010 4 WPC No.36185/2010 5