IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.1509 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5839/2008 DATED 11/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------- KURIAKOSE, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 48 YEARS, THAYIL HOUSE, CHITHIRAPURAM P.O, POWER HOUSE, ADIMALY. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAV, IDUKKI. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SUB STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R3 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1509 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.5839 of 2008 dated 11th June, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition. 2. The prayers made in the petition are as under: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to acquire entire extent of 83.250 cents of land consisting 51.250 cents of registered land and 32 cents of unregistered land in Pallivasal Village of the petitioner and his wife. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.31000/- for registered land and Rs.16500/- for unregistered land. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to trespass to the property of the petitioner and install pipeline through it without acquiring it and paying compensation in accordance with law. W.A.No.1509 of 2008 - 2 - iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P7 representation”. 3. The first prayer is to direct the acquiring authority to acquire a large extent of the land, though they do not require the same for their purpose. In a writ proceedings, this Court is not expected to give such a direction to the acquiring authority to acquire certain extent of the land at the wish of the owner, which they do not require. In that view of the matter, the first relief sought for by the petitioner can never be granted by any Court, much less a writ Court. Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the first relief sought for by the petitioner. 4. In so far as the second prayer is concerned, in our opinion, it is between the acquiring authority and the petitioner. If, for any reason, by negotiations/settlement the acquiring authority is prepared to pay the amounts demanded by the petitioner, this Court will not interfere with such orders passed by the acquiring authority. But, at the same time, this Court cannot direct the acquiring authority to pay a particular price demanded by the petitioner for acquiring the land which is in the possession of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, even the second prayer also cannot be granted. W.A.No.1509 of 2008 - 3 - 5. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the writ petition. We do not find any error, whatsoever, in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which would call for our interference in this appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge