IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 16357 of 2007(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.A.RASHEED, MANAGING PARTNER, STANDARD INDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES, T.C.38/970, POWERHOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL (L.A.) UNIT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.M.KESAVAN, T.C.5/1153, AMABALAMMUKKU, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 16357/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1 Original Photographs. Ext.P2 True photo copy of the representation and acknowledgement Ext.P3 True photo copy of the Advocate Notice. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.A. To Judge. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16357 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a tenant of the building, a portion of which was sought to be acquired for a public purpose. According to the petitioner, only a portion of the building was acquired and on the strength of that acquisition, 3rd respondent who is the owner of a building, is trying to evict him forcibly. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the owner of the building had filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to acquire the whole structure, but that was not allowed and only a portion of the building was acquired. It is further submitted that in view of the principle laid down in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 6 (F.B), a tenant is not entitled to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. W.P.(C) No.16357/2007 2 3. It is true that petitioner, being a tenant, cannot challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Since, the entire building is not sought to be acquired, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner under any other law for the time being, this writ petition is closed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.