IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31393 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.140/2007 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. E.JACOB VARGHESE, S/O.CHACKO KOCHU CHACKO, ELANJICKAL KARUKAYIL VEEDU, PADINJATTUM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE, THURUTHI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. E.J.JACOB, S/O.CHACKO KOCHU CHACKO, DO. DO. (REPRESENTED BY HIS AGENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E.JACOB VARGHESE, IST PETITIONER). 3. E.J.SUSANNA, D/O.CHACKO KOCHU CHACKO, DO. DO. (REPRESENTED BY HER AGENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E.JACOB VARGHESE, IST PETITIONER). BY ADV. MR.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, KOLLAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31393 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.140 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. Suit was one for money and the respondents, the defendants. A portion of the property belonging to the petitioners/plaintiffs was acquired by the State invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act. A part of the property left over had been rendered valueless in view of the acquisition made and that also should have been acquired was the plea raised by the plaintiffs before the Government. However, that request was declined since the Government was of the view that the property sought to be taken over was a puramboke land. The plaintiffs instituted a suit as O.S.No.93 of 1996 to get their title declared over the portion of the property which was left over after the acquisition by the Government. Ext.P1 is the copy of the judgment rendered in the above suit. Since there was refusal by the Government to take over the land covered by Ext.P1 suit, plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking a W.P.(C).No.31393 of 2009 - O 2 decree against the Government for the value of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the survey numbers over the property involved, according to the plaintiffs,had been corrected pursuant to a judgment rendered in a writ petition moved by them. After carrying out the corrections in the survey numbers by the revenue authorities plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint in the suit by filing Ext.P4 application in which among other amendments they sought for conversion of suit for recovery of money into a suit for compensation. The application for amendment was resisted by the respondents/defendants filing objections. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed the application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned Government Pleader has taken notice for the respondents. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Perusing Ext.P6 order with reference to the exhibits produced in the writ petition, it is apparent that the plaintiffs now W.P.(C).No.31393 of 2009 - O 3 seeks to convert the suit previously filed as one for money into one for compensation. I do not wish to express any opinion whether injurious affectation over the rest of the property left over after a proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act would entitle the plaintiff to sue for compensation or money from the Government. Perusing Ext.P4 amendment sought for by the plaintiff it appears that the amendment was made at a belated stage solely canvassing a case that some corrections in survey numbers of the property had been made after obtaining favourable orders from this Court in a writ petition moved by the plaintiffs. Ext.P1 judgment in the previous suit also shows that suit was one for injunction alone. Taking into all these aspects, I find there is no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. Writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-