IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9852 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.AHAMMED KUNHI KOYA, S/O.B.AHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 63 YEARS, KEELAPURA HOUSE, KILTAN ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KEELAPPURA MUHAMMED KOYA, KILTAN ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.B.AMANULLA SRI.M.ISHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(HQ), (LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR), COLLECTORATE OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. ASG SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN SC SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).9852/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, in 1963, the administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep acquired certain properties belonging to his family for the purpose of constructing a bunglow and Medical Officers' Quarters at Kiltan Island. Subsequently in 1977, they were paid Rs.11,270/- which was far inadequate to the prevailing value. Therefore, petitioner made representations to the Administrator, the last of which are Exts.P1 and P2. According to the petitioner, Administrator has already obtained Ext.P4 report on the representations made by him. However, the matter has not been finally decided and therefore, with that grievance, this writ petition is filed. 2. Prima facie it would appear that the respondents are considering the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, all that is required in this writ petition is to direct the 3rd respondent to take a final decision on Exts.P1 and P2 in the light of Ext.P4. W.P.(C).9852/10 2 This the 3rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months of production of a copy of this judgment. 3. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised and it is entirely for the 3rd respondent to decide the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs