IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 12066 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAM JOSEPH, KARINGATTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, DEVASWOM LANE B, KAIRALI NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, PALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROADS), O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROADS), P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), PWD (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SARASAN, MATHA POULTRY FARM, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12066/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1; COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.2752 KUDAPPANAKKUNNU VILLAGE, DATED 7.4.2005. EXT.P1(A): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.275244 KUDAPPANAKKUNNU VILLAGE DATED 7.4.2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.4.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.4.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4; COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.11.2007 ISSUED IN LAC NO.179/2007 BY THE 3RD ESPONDENT. EXT.P5; COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.3.2008 IN LAC 179/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING PETITIONER'S PROPERTY I WPC NO.12066/2008. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF TH SKETCH SHOWING PETITIONER'S property I WPC NO.35138/2007 AND WPC NO.11628/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 12066 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August , 2008 JUDGMENT Pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, a joint inspection was conducted and The District Survey Superintendent has filed a detailed statement. Along with the statement, Ext.R1(a) sketch showing the petitioner's property proposed to be acquired is produced. In paragraph 3 of the statement, it is very clearly stated as follows; “The width of the land acquired from the northern side is 3.6 metre, and 2.4 metre. On verification, no variation from the original alignment has been noticed.” In view of the above statement which has been submitted on the basis of inspection conducted in the presence of the petitioner also, I am not at all impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that alignment was deviated from in such a manner as to cause detriment to the petitioner. The petitioner is highlighting variation in the extents WPC No.12066/2008 2 shown in Ext.P2 and in the declaration under section 6. It is well known that in the initial notification under Section 4(1), the land Acquisition authority is not expected to show the precise extent. I have already repelled similar contentions raised by the persons whose lands were also acquired for the same purpose. For all the above reasons, this writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk