IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10579 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.KHALID, RUKSANA MANZIL, ERIPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH), KANNUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, KANNUR. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP), PWD GUEST HOUSE, KANNUR. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10579/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.2.2005 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 ; COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3; COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FOR NO.12 INTIMATING THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIOENR AS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4; COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.3.2006. EXT.P5; COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.5.2006 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6; COPY OF THE REPRESENTTION DATED 5.6.2006 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 10579 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance,which the petitioner has voiced in this writ petition, is that a portion of the building belonging to him is proposed to be acquired and the acquisitioning authorities are not acceding his request for acquisition of the entire building despite the request in that regard given under Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. Reading of paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit will show that the building portion which was initially intended to be acquired has now been avoided from acquisition. Since there is no current proposal to acquire any portion of the petitioner's building, his request for acquisition of the entire building is not liable to be entertained. I record paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit and dispose of this writ petition without granting reliefs since reliefs sought for are unnecessary. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk