IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 W.A.No. 576 of 2009 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.1423/2009 IN WPC.34001/2008 Dated 16/02/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, DIVISION OFFICE, REST HOUSE COMPOUND, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SPECICAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH), REVENUE TOWER, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KURUVILANGAD. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 5: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HORMIS JACOB, S/O.JACOB, MATTATHILNEELAKKATTU HOUSE, KRUIANAND KARA, MONIPALLY, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE KURUVILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. FR.DOMINIC (FR.CHACKO), S/O.UTHUP, VELAYAIPARAMBIL, KURUVILANGAD. R1 BY ADV.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD ADV.SRI.JOBY JACOB PUZICREKUDY ADV.SRI.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No. 576 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The appellants herein are respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the writ petition. They are aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1423 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.34001 of 2008 dated 16.2.2009. As per the said interim order, the learned Single Judge directed demolition of only a portion of the building which is acquired through negotiated purchase by the appellants. It is contended by the appellants that once a purchase is made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the tenant of the building cannot have a better claim than that of the landlord. The landlord has no objection in demolishing the building and in fact the value by way of compensation has been settled in this case and the amount is being disbursed to the landlord. 2. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel W.A. No. 576 of 2009 - 2 - for the writ petitioner/tenant submitted that if he is given 15 days time for demolition of the objectionable part of the building which impedes the construction, he would undertake that the rest of the building can be demolished within another six months. As far as the appellants are concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that being a fast track project any delay would be detrimental to the public interest also. 3. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a viable solution can be made as far as the issue is concerned. As agreed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/tenant, he would demolish the objectionable part of the building which is required for the construction of the road within 15 days from today. Within another six months the entire building will also be demolished. The above submissions of the learned counsel are recorded. If the writ petitioner/tenant does not comply with any of the submissions by way of undertaking as recorded by W.A. No. 576 of 2009 - 3 - us above, it will be open to the appellants to demolish the entire building. We make it clear that we have not adverted to the various contentions taken in the appeal and those contentions are left open to be decided by the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petition. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. . S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns