IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 33408 of 2009(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BABU THOMAS CHANDY, S/O.LATE CHANDY, KUDIYATHUKUZHUPPIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, MUTTUCHIRA POST, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.VINOD J.DEV SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT-II, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, M.V.I.P., KURUPPANTHARA KADAVU, KURUPPANTHARA POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI.M. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.33408/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EVIDENCING THE LEGAL HEIR SHIP OF PETITIONER . P2 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.352/2000 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT AT VAIKOM DATED 26/7/2000. P3 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO.37683/2003 DATED 31/3/2004. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/4/2003. P4(A) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENGINEER DATED 10/11/2004. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8/5/2009. P6 COPY OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SCHEME. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33408 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking a direction commanding the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 within a time limit fixed by this Court and for a direction commanding the respondents not to enter or commit any form of waste in the property having an extent of 3.81 acres that belongs to the petitioner and members of his family that situates in Sy.No.192/9 of Manjoor Village. 2. The respondents initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. Petitioner's property was also included in the acquisition proceedings. The respondents pointed out that the petitioner preferred a suit before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. The suit was dismissed twice for non-prosecution and restored subsequently and finally, the suit stands dismissed on 28.9.09 for non- prosecution. It is alleged by the respondents that after the dismissal of the suit and without stating the true facts, the writ W.P.(C) No.33408/2009 2 petition was filed on unsustainable grounds. 3. According to the petitioner, the authorities have now decided to change the alignment after due deliberation. Therefore, it is contended that only after alignment approved by this Court, acquisition of the property can be concluded. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner made suggestions and the same became acceptable to the 3rd respondent, but, in turn Ext.P5 communication was issued by the Executive Engineer. Pursuant to Ext.P5 communication, petitioner submitted draft agreement for implementing the Scheme. Ext.P6 is the Draft Agreement. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner prayed for a direction commanding the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6. 4. In Paragraph 5 of the statement it is stated that acquisition proceedings were started in the year 2002, the land was taken possession by the Revenue Authority and handed over to the Irrigation Department on 26.10.09 It is also stated that entire compensation amount was handed over to the Revenue Department and the amount was not accepted by the petitioner. Therefore, the same is deposited before the competent Civil W.P.(C) No.33408/2009 3 Court under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act. The 3rd respondent also denied the allegation that the respondent is attempting to tamper with the way of the petitioner. It is categorically stated that the intention is to complete the balance portions of a canal which is absolutely necessary for the local people for agricultural purposes and for some other purposes. It is also stated that since the petitioner obtained status quo order, the work was at a stand still for quite a long time. It is further stated that the pendency of the writ petition and the draft agreement as per Ext.P6 is delayed the completion of the Project. It is also pointed out that an Award was passed and all the formalities required under the Act was completed long back. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled any reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al