IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 31390 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. JOB YOHANNAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.JOB, MUNDUKOTTAL, PALLICHACHIRA P.O., PAYIPPAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SIJIMOL JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, MUNDUKOTTAL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.RINOY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSIDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADDL. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DT. 21.11.2007 IN I.A.No.15198/2007) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX in W.P.(C) 31390/2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 23.2.1998 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER AND OTHERS. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 23.2.1998 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER AND OTHERS. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 5.6.1994 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF O.S.267/1998 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.S.NO.267/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P6 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.10.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LAND ACQUISITION SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, PATHANAMTHITTA WITH COPIES TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.A. To Judge. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31390 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The first petitioner along with his brothers are co- owners in respect of one Acre and 95 ½ cents of paddy land, comprised in Survey No.196/3B, 196/4A and 196/5 of Kunnanthanam Village. Further case of the petitioners was that an area of One Acre one cent was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and they are attempting to construct a boundary wall of that property, so as to permanently block the right of way of the petitioners. It was averred that in case respondents are allowed to construct a compound wall, the easement right of the petitioners will be affected. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Respondents have filed a counter contending that petitioners have filed their objections to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and in that objection, they did not make any claim of easement right. It is also submitted that petitioners have filed an earlier writ petition before this Court challenging the acquisition, and in that writ petition also, no such W.P.(C) No.31390/2007 2 ground was alleged. While filing objections to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as well as while challenging the declaration, the stand taken by the petitioners was that there is no public purpose at all. So, it was unnecessary to raise a contention that petitioners were entitled to easement right. It is admitted by the respondents that so far no steps have been taken for the construction of the compound wall. It is also stated that when ever lands are alloted to entrepreneurs for establishing Industrial units, the respondents will take maximum care not to affect the right of the petitioners. This submission of the respondents is recorded. It is only just and proper to issue a direction to the respondents to issue notice and hear the petitioners also before the construction of compound wall. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.