IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 OP.No. 1038 of 2000(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A. PUSHPAMMA, KADAYIL VEEDU, T.C. NO. 2/1979, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SELIN JACOB, T.C. 4/169, BIJU BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH, R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 1038/2000-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/03/1991IN O.A. 246 OF 1986 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18TH SEPT. 1998 IN CRP. 1394/1997 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/10/1999 FROM GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DTD 23/11/1999 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY DTD. 01/01/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 06/01/2000 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE SITE PLAN PREPARED BY REVENUE OFFICIAL. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE ORDER IN A.A. NO. 55/91 OF THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY (LR), ATTINGAL. EXT.R3.B: COPIES OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 14/09/99 FILED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 1038 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is in possession of a building in Pattom Village in Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner raised a claim for kudikidappu in respect of the property of which the 3rd respondent was the landlord. 2. The matter came up before this Court in C.R.P. No. 1394/1997 and this Court, by Ext. P2 order, remanded the matter. While the matter was pending before the lower authority pursuant to such remand, the Government issued a notification for acquisition of a part of that land. As per Exts.P3 and P4 communications, the petitioner was informed that the property in her possession was not included in the acquisition proceedings . But, later, it was found that a portion of the same was included in the acquisition notification. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered possession of that portion which was notified for acquisition. However, later on, by Ext. P5 the petitioner was directed to vacate the property and deliver possession. The petitioner filed Ext. P6 objections. Apprehending demolition of the petitioner's building, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext. P 5 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to acquire only the properties included in the acquisition proceedings .” 3. The Government and the 3rd respondent took the contention that although only a portion of the building in possession of the petitioner has been acquired, the 3rd respondent has exercised her O.P.. No. 1038/2000 -: 2 :- right under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the entire building and that is why the entire building has been acquired and sought to be demolished. 4. Originally, the original petition was disposed of giving the petitioner 4 months' time to vacate. The petitioner filed R.P.No. 227/2005, wherein, taking note of the contention of the petitioner that subsequently the proceedings before the Land Tribunal ended in issue of a certificate of purchase , on purchase of kudikidappu by the petitioner, the situation has changed. The judgment was reviewed and the original petition was again posted for hearing. It is under the above circumstances, this original petition comes up for hearing before me today. 5. The learned Government Pleader has produced the files relating to the case before me. In the same, I find a certificate of purchase, whereby, on purchase of kudikidappu, the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Trivandrum has issued purchase certificate No. 192/2003 as per proceedings in O.A.No. 246/1986. That being so, the 3rd respondent does not have any right in respect of the building any more and consequently, she cannot exercise rights under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed as prayed for. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/