IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34436 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. CHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 70, S/O.KALLARACKAL RAMAN NAIR, KAVANAL, KUZHIKKAD KARA, AMBALAMUGHAL.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, AGED 68, W/O.CHANDRAN NAIR, KAVANAL, KUZHIKKAD KARA, AMBALAMUGHAL.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.L.SREEDEVI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHZILDAR (LA), KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., VADAKKEKOTTA, TRIPUNITHURA. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED ADDL. R3: M/S.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KOCHI OIL REFINERIES LTD., AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY DY. GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS). * ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/12/2009 IN I.A. NO.15636/2009. R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SREEKRISHNA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).34436/2009-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Adv.S.Sujin takes notice for the additional third respondent. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the leaned senior counsel for the additional third respondent. The petitioners' complaint is that the land being acquired from them is not appropriately identified for the purpose of acquisition in as much as while the petitioners assert that their land has road access, the plot has been classified to a category which takes in lands which do not have road access. All that is required at this point of time is that the second WPC34436/09 -: 2 :- respondent, the Acquisition Officer, will make a site inspection with notice to the petitioners. The learned Senior Government Pleader also submits that 119 cases have been settled by parties accepting the BPL's offer based on DLPC rates. Obviously, therefore, the petitioners' grievances may be confined to the proper classification of the land. Hence, it is ordered that the second respondent will conduct a site inspection with notice to the petitioners and the petitioners or their representative will be given an opportunity to show the access to the property as they may claim. The second respondent will, then, finalise the proceedings accordingly. Dispossession will be done only after that. The writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1612