IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12978 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. NATARAJAN, S/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED 54, RESIDING AT TC 48/197, NAYANA BHAVAN, PAZHANCHIRA, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-26. 2. GIRIJA, W/O.NATARAJAN, AGED 49, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R5: CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 IN WP(C) NO. 12978/2009 AS PER ORDER DATED 10/06/2009 IN I.A.NO. 6678/2009. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. MANU BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN ADDL.R5 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12978 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondents to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners. It is contended that in the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the land belonging to the petitioners, situated in Sy.No.412/12 of Thiruvallom Village in Thiruvananthapuram District is not included and even if land is required for establishing a Sewage Pumping Station, the Corporation has its own land where the Sewage Pumping Station can be put up. Long after the writ petition was filed, the Government have issued G.O.(Rt) No.375/2010/LSGD dated 2.2.2010 amending the proposal to acquire the land and included the land of the petitioners in the proposed acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in such circumstances as a fresh notification under section 4(1) will have to be issued, this writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn leaving open the contentions of the petitioners and reserving liberty with them to challenge the fresh notification as and when it is issued. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not oppose the said request. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as W.P.(C) No.12978 of 2009 2 withdrawn reserving liberty with the petitioners to challenge the acquisition of land in other appropriate proceedings, if their land is notified for acquisition. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.