IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12716 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.KUMARAN,S/O.K.V.KUNHIKORAN, AGED 69 YEARS,KODOTH VALAPPIL HOUSE, KAPPIL,UDUMA VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT.K.SUSHEELA NAIR, S/O.LATE E.P.KESHAVAN KUTTY NAIR,AGED 73 YEARS, "LEKSHMI NIVAS",KOTTACHERY,BALLA VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK,P.O.KANHANGAD,P.A.HOLDER OF DR.C.SUKUMARAN NAIR,S/O.PARVATHI AMMA,AGED 63 YRS. "LAKSHMI NIVAS",KOTTACHERY P.O.KANHANGAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT DIVISION (PWD), PAYYAMBALAM,KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,LAND ACQUISITION, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, CIVIL STATION,KASARAGOD P.O.VIDHYA NAGAR. BY GP SMT K R DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 12716 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a tenant of the first respondent. It is stated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that another room in the same building is occupied by a political party. According to the petitioner, the building stands on a piece of 8 cents of land. Following revised notification and on fixation of alignment, steps were taken under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of different parcels including 0.0002 hectares of land in resurvey No.116/12 in Udma Village of Hosdurg Taluk in Kasargode. Alleging that the petitioner is likely to be dispossessed on the basis of that proceeding, he filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition on the ground that it is a malafide exercise of the authority at the instance of the landlord, namely, first respondent. This court noticed that in terms of the decision of the Division Bench referred to in Ext.P1, the petitioner, as a tenant, does not have the right to challenge the acquisition and also that he is not an interested person in terms of the Land Acquisition WP(C)12716/2009 2 Act. Accordingly, that writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P1 judgment on 11.4.2007. The petitioner now states that Ext.P2 has been issued to take over possession and that this will result in the dispossession of the petitioner from his grocery shop. Ext.P2 is only an order for taking over of possession of the land described therein viz, 0.0002 hectares of land as noted above. The petitioner does not have a case that the acquisition is being enforced in excess of what is permissible in terms of Ext.P2. He cannot have such a case because Ext.P2 having been issued on 13.3.2009, for dispossession of the extent shown therein, it would be premature either for the petitioner or for this court to assume at this point of time that the petitioner would be dispossessed of any land in excess of what is shown in Ext.P2. All other issues stand concluded against the petitioner by the force of Ext.P1 judgment. In the result, I find no grounds to interfere. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving open the right, if any, of the petitioner to agitate before the competent authority any case of excessive dispossession having regard to Ext.P2. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/6/6