IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2007 / 7TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 11037 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.C.JOSEPH,KOTTAKKADAVIL VEEDU, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O,PUNNAMANADA,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LAND ACQUISITION, COLLECTORATE,ALAPPUZHA. 4. VARGHESE,THEKKETHALAKKAL, THATHAMPALLY WARD,ALAPPUZHA. 5. T.N.RAJAMMA,W/O (LATE) PUSHKARAN, KAYALCHIRA,THEKKANARYAD,ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.G.SUNIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 11037 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th June, 2007. J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims title and possession over 3.5 cents of property in Punnamada, Alleppey District. According to him, he purchased 2.5 cents from the 4th respondent and one cent from the 5th respondent, in the year 2002 and 2004 respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that, of the property he purchased, one cent of property was notified to be acquired, and on the strength of that notification, respondents are attempting to take more land than that was notified. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed a counter affidavit stating that 2.5 cents of land which the petitioner claims to have purchased from the 4th respondent was not included in the acquisition, whereas, the portion of land said to have been purchased from the 5th respondent is included. In paragraph 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:- “8. It is submitted that the petitioner alleged to have purchased land having an extent of 2.5 cents from the 4th respondent and an extent of 1 cent from 5th respondent. The portion of the land W.P.(C) No.11037/2007 2 alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner from the 4th respondent was not included in the acquisition whereas the portion of land said to have been purchased from the 5th respodnent is included in the acquisition. It is submitted that the rehabilitation package was framed for providing residential plots to the families who were having residential houses in the area under acquisition. It may be noted that the petitioner is not eligible to be included in the rehabilitation package since the petitioner is not a resident of the acquired area. 9. The petitioner's property was not included in the acquisition and he is not eligible to be included in any kind of rehabilitation package. It is also pertinent to note that the award was passed in favour of 4th respondent for an extent of 1.60 ares and in favour of the 5th respondent for an extent of 3.40 ares.” 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to get any rehabilitation package, and one cent of property, which the petitioner claims to have purchased from the 5th respondent, was already included in the acquisition. He further submitted that the acquisition proceedings were initiated against the 4th and 5th respondents, and an award was passed in favour of 4th respondent for an area of 1.60 Ares and 3.40 Ares in respect of 5th respondent. It is contented that the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount as compensation. W.P.(C) No.11037/2007 3 In the result, the writ petition is closed recording the statement of the learned Government Pleader. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.