IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36298 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. SCARIA MATHEW, AGED 50, S/O. MATHEW, MATHICHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. FRANCIS JOHN, AGED 50, S/O. JOHN, CHAZHOOR HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE DIST., REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MATHEW GREGORY, MEDAYIL HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.FRANCIS SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.W.D., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. (N.H.), CHANGANASSERRY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.36298 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are citizens of India. The first petitioner owns 3.61 ares of land in resurvey No.677/11-3 and 677/20-1 of Nattakam Village. The second petitioner owns 0.81 ares of land in resurvey No.677/11-2 of the same Village. The petitioners are working in United Nations. The first petitioner obtained voluntary retirement. But both of them are even now living at Janeeva. The properties are situated on the side of Main Central Road in the heart of Chingavanam town. According to the petitioners they purchased the properties with an intention to construct a shopping complex. They had obtained necessary sanction for construction of shopping complex from the third respondent. It is averred that the petitioners came to know that there was a move to acquire their land on the pretext of widening of M.C. road. Their grievance is that originally the alignment was fixed to acquire the land from either side of the existing road. But that subsequently changed and now the WPC36298/2007 2 proposal is to acquire land from the petitioners' land alone. The state has filed a counter affidavit contending that no deviation has been made from the original alignment. It is also contended that the award was already passed on 17.11.2007 and the notice was served on the petitioners on 5.12.2007 by affixture. Since the award were already passed, I do not find any reason to interfere the acquisition. So, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE csl