IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8628 of 2008(B) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. NAJEEB K.K., KAITHAKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. AZHEEKODE JETTY, KODUNGALLUR. 2. GRAND MARINE FOODS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.K.NAJEEB. BY MR.S.RAMESH BABU, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), THRISSUR. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A. GENERAL), THRISSUR. BY MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8628/2008 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF COMBINED NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT ALONG WITH SECTION 17(4). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8628 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P1 notification issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 17(4) read with Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The public purpose mentioned therein was for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims. The petitioners point out that already lands are available with the respondents for the said purpose. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, in paragraph 6, it is pointed out that the excess land available in Azheekode village has been recommended by the Tahsildar for the rehabilitation and resettlement purpose. Hence a proposal for utilising the excess land for the purpose is under consideration of the Government. In case the Government approves the proposal, the petitioners' land will not be acquired for the purpose. 3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that a proposal has already been moved to denotify the land as W.P.(C) No.8628/2008 2 the land is not required for the said public purpose. In that view of the matter, as the land is not needed for the public purpose for which notifications are issued, it is only proper to record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that no further action will be taken against the petitioners. Since it is submitted that the land is not required for the public purpose, no further action will be taken as far as the land owned by the petitioners is concerned for acquisition. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp