IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 4062 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- ANSAR.M., ANSHA HOUSE, AKKOLIL, MAYYANAD ,KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, LAND ACUISITION, NO.I, KOLLAM. 5. THE MAYYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MAYYANAD P.O - 691 303, KOLLAM. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MAYYANAD. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R6 MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.4062 OF 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner purchased an item of property on 7.9.2007. On 10.10.2007, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to acquire lands including the petitioner's land for the purpose of Tsuani Rehabilitation Programme. Section 6 declaration was on 18.9.2008. It appears that the petitioner obtained a building permit on 10.10.2007, the date of section 4(1) notification, and completed the construction by August, 2008 and has made different representations. With the passage of time, award has also been passed on 5.1.2009. In this context, the plea of the petitioner that the Government should consider exempting the land of the petitioner from acquisition, on the premise that life time earnings of the petitioner was utilised for putting up the building does not merit consideration, the award having been passed and the Writ Petition having been filed subsequent to the award. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs in relation to the quantum of compensation. This judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner requesting the competent authority for some time to vacate the building. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ps