IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28812 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. SMITHA.S., ANJALI, MARUR SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU, KARUNAGAPALLY. 2. YAMUNA, W/O.DILEEP KUMAR, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, ALAPPAD, CHERIAZHIKKAL P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. SAUDAMINI, W/O.LATE DHANANJAYAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, ALAPPAD, CHERIAZHIKKAL P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION NO.1, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) 28812/2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.6.2002 FOR RS.130.00 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.12.2006 IN W.P.(C) 26080/06. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT BY PETITIONERS DATED 17.5.2007. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.9.2007 ISSUED TO PETITIONERS BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 21.9.2007 STATING ACQUISITION UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28812 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the owners of 70 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.66/7, 19/13 and 69/23 in Alappad Village of Karunagapally Taluk. According to the petitioners, there was a proposal to acquire the middle portion of the property, wherein residential buildings situate, to provide a pathway to the old age home, which is proposed to be constructed. According to the petitioners, land acquired for construction of old age home is situated on the western side of the property of the petitioner and there is a proposal to construct a pathway dividing the property of the petitioners in to two halves. So, they have filed Ext.P3 representation before the District Collector to exempt their property from acquisition or at least to construct the proposed pathway through the northern boundary of their property. It is also stated that if such a course is adopted, the damages caused can be reduced. On 18.10.2007, the Collector wrote a letter to the State to modify the sanction accorded as per G.O.(Rt) No. 1035/07/DMD dated 7.3.2007. W.P.(C) No.28812/2007 2 2. District Collector has subsequently reported that 2.83 Ares in Survey No.69/13 of Alappad Village could not be acquired due to the objection of the land owners and subsequently, they have provided alternate land in Survey No.69/13 of Alappad Village and sought for modification of the proposal. Accordingly, sanction was accorded to acquire 0.03553 hectares of land. According to the petitioners, though survey number is mentioned, the order is not clear as to whether the new pathway will be constructed through the northern boundary of the property. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land originally proposed to be acquired for the pathway will divide the property into two plots rendering both plots useless. The learned Government Pleader submits that District Collector after considering the objections of the petitioners and also taking note of the fact that they have agreed to provide an alternate pathway, made a recommendation to the Government to acquire the land for an alternate pathway through the northern portion of the property of the petitioner. So, the order produced shows that the original proposal was altered and the Collector had accepted an alternate pathway through Survey No.69/13. So, in fact, the writ petition has become infructuous. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, they have other remedies W.P.(C) No.28812/2007 3 under law. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to recourse to the Law, in case, they are aggrieved by the notification yet to be published, this writ petition is closed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.