IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4103 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C. NEELAKANDAN KARTHA,AGED 56 YEARS S/O.K.NARAYANAN KARTHA, VII/263-A NARAYANEEYAM, CHERANALLORE PO, COCHIN 682 034. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION N.H.A.I., VALLARPADAM, ELOOR. 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER LAND ACQUISITION N.H.A.I., VALLARPADAM, ELOOR. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SC FOR NHAI R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4103 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner and who is in absolute possession of land comprised in Survey No.99/2-10 of Cheranalloor Village. The land belonging to the petitioner and others are being acquired for the purpose of construction of road connectivity to Vallarpadam Container Transhipment Terminal Project. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents are trying to demolish a portion of his building without serving any notice on him. This is denied by the respondents. 2. The learned Government Pleader, and also the Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority have stated that since the petitioner refused to accept notices, notices were pasted on his house. It is also submitted that an area of 01.65 Areas and a portion of the building situated in that area alone are acquired. It is further submitted that an area of 12 Sq.Meters of the building is to be W.P.(C) No.4103/2008 2 demolished. It is also submitted that while taking possession, a mahazar was prepared in which the building portion and the plan of the land is also shown. 3. Sri.K.Ramakumar, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the building situated on either side of the petitioner's building is not yet demolished, but the building portion of the petitioner alone is attempted to be demolished. It is submitted by the respondents that work is in progress and acquired portion will have to be demolished for widening of the road. The plan contained in the mahazar, as well as Ext.P2 shows that only a small portion of the building is to be demolished. According to me, since only a small area of the building is to be demolished, the same can be demolished using cutting machines and causing least damage to the remaining portion of the building. It is only just and proper that before starting the work, petitioner is given sufficient advance notice, so that he can make necessary alternate arrangements, till the demolition process is over. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing that as and when demolition of the building portion is to be effected, respondents shall give prior notice to the petitioner, who shall also co- W.P.(C) No.4103/2008 3 operate with the respondents. The building portion shall be demolished using modern machineries causing least damage to the rest of the building. The authority shall permit the petitioner to do the necessary work to protect the remaining portion of the building also. I also make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to exercise the option under Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.