IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5647 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THRESSIA, W/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT CHAMMANIKKODATH HOUSE, KORAMPADAM, KOTHAD. 2. M.J.JOSEPH, S/O.JUSE, RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KORAMPADAM, KOTHAD. 3. N.A.ANSON, S/O.ANTONY, RESIDING AT NAYATTIL HOUSE, KORAMPADAM, KOTHAD. 4. P.T.FRANCIS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE, KORAMPADAM, KOTHAD. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION, RAILWAY), VALLARPADOM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSSHIPMENT TERMINAL PROJECT, ERNAKULAM. MR.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5647 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The main grievance is regarding the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering and passing orders on Ext.P8 representation made by the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, they were not given the benefit of the rehabilitation package on account of the fact that there was some interse dispute between the parties. In Ext.P6 judgment dated 11/03/2009 in WP(C) No.2982/2009, this Court directed that once the disputes are settled as provided under Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the benefit of the package announced will be extended to the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the disputes have now been settled and Ext.P7 compromise statement is referred to in this context. It is stated that thereafter they submitted Ext.P8 representation for the benefit of the Scheme announced and orders have not been passed by the 2nd respondent thereon. WP(C) No.5647/2010 -2- 3. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation, with notice to the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim raised and it is entirely for the 2nd respondent to deal with the matter. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg