IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5247 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GRACY GEORGE, W/O. GEORGE, AGED 69 YEARS, OLIYIL HOUSE, MURIAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD. 3. THIRUVANKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADDL. R4: THE additional COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 28-3-08 IN IA.3782/08 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX:- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED AS PER NOTIFICATION NO.B3/1370/04 DATED 13-6-2007 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-2-1987 IN original petition . NO.11067 OF 1985 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AS AMENDED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION (KERALA AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 1985. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SEC. 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON 17-11-1988. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ORTHOPAEDICS MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 14-7-2007 TO THE PETITIONER's SON EXT.P6 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERPTY TAKEN FROM THE ROAD SIDE (NORTHERN SIDE) OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6(A) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE REAR (SOUTH) SIDE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P6(B) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY. EXT.P6(C) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED AUNDER SEC. 17(4) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. EXT.P8 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE ROAD SIDE (NORTHERN SIDE) OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY. EXT.p8(A) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE. EXT.P8(B) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE. EXT.P8(C) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE. EXT.P9 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE NORTHERN SIDE. EXT.P10 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE ROAD. EXT.P11 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER's PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THE EASTERN SIDE. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION NOTIFIED ON 5-11-2007 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTs EXHIBITS:- EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER UNDER ACQUISITION. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 5247 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 is Ext.P1 combined notification under section 4(1) and section 17(4) regarding the proposal to acquire 17.30 ares of land in Sy. No.518/13 and 14 belonging to the petitioner for the public purpose of constructing a parking place and vegetable market for the third respondent Panchayat. Also under challenge is Ext.P7 which is described in the writ petition as a subsequent notification under section 4(1) regarding the acquisition of the very same property under the ordinary provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the requisitioning authority as well as by the land acquisition officer. It is pointed out through the counter affidavits that the issue is covered by the judgment of this court in O.P. No. 11067/85 in which Ext.P2 judgment was passed by this court. It is seen from Ext.P2 that when a notification issued by the Government under section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act in the year 1984 for acquiring properties of the petitioner for the very same purpose was challenged and the matter was compromised between the petitioner and the respondents and the WP(C)N0. 5247/08 -2- respondents were permitted to continue with the acquisition of the properties of the petitioner as substituted by the joint statement filed in that case by the parties. But it is seen that despite the permission granted by this court under Ext.P2 the Panchayat did not pursue the matter with the result that the notification which was challenged in Ext.P2 got lapsed. Thereafter in 1988 a fresh notification under section 4(1) was promulgated for acquisition of slightly larger extent of the petitioner's property than what was permitted under Ext.P2. That notification also was not followed up and got lapsed. The case of the petitioner is believing that the Panchayat is not keen on accomplishing the avowed purpose the petitioner sold away portions of her properties and started construction of a commercial building so that the petitioner and her son who is said to be a disabled person could eke out their living. It is while so, that the petitioner has been shocked to serve with notice Ext.P1 followed by P7. It will at once be stated that Ext.P7 is not a subsequent notification under section 4(1) as the petitioner alleges, it is only a public notice in form No.4(b) given to all interested persons regarding the acquisition proposal pursuant to Ext.P1. 3. Several grounds have been raised in this writ petition and WP(C)N0. 5247/08 -3- Mr.Sugunapalan, learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner's main grievance is regarding invocation of the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and dispossession of the petitioner under section 5A. Mr. Sreekumar as well as the learned Govt. Pleader would submit that in as much as the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner according sanction for invocation of the emergency provisions is not under challenge the petitioner cannot aspire for the relief sought for in this writ petition. The submission of learned standing counsel for the Panchayat and the learned Govt. Pleader that the petitioner may have to successfully challenge the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner permitting invocation of the emergency provisions if he is to aspire for reliefs has merit. I am therefore not inclined to examine the grounds raised in this writ petition. I dispose of the writ petition without considering merits. However, there will be a direction that the petitioner will not be dispossessed of the property proposed to be acquired from her under Exts.P1 and P7 for a period of ten days from today. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/- WP(C)N0. 5247/08 -4-