IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 804 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9847/2008 Dated 31/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WP: --------------------- RAMESH KUMAR, AGED 45, S/O. VENKATACHALAM, T.C.9/1782, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, PULLIAKONAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 AND ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.8: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), ADDITIONAL LAND UNIT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.A. NO.804/2008 7. M. HASSAN, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, T.C.9/2177, KANISON BUILDING, MADRASA LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(TRIDA), REP. BY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.MEERA- R1 TO R6 BY SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA - R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN - R7 SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN - R7 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.804 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 29th May, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This appeal is filed by the tenant who occupies a shop room which was partly acquired by the Government. Already a Full Bench of this court in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 6 (FB)) held that if the landlord exercises the option to acquire the entire building, Collector has no option, but, to acquire the entire building or refrain from any acquisition at all. Building includes the land in which it is situated. Tenant cannot file a petition saying that the entire portion should not be acquired or part of the building should not be demolished. We see no ground to interfere with the operative part of the impuged judgmet. But, the observation of the learned single Judge that Full Bench decision is applicable only from the date of the decision is not correct. Full Bench has only declared the law and, therefore, entire property including that protion has to be taken by the Government and it cannot take a stand that land was not acquired. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks