IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28872 of 2004(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ UNNI NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 41 YEARS, AIKKURAMALIL HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O. AMALA, ADIYODI, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. THAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHOOTHATHANKETTU, PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28872 of 2004(K) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 29/7/1985. EXT.P2 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2002. EXT.P3 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/7/2003. EXT.P3(a) - PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 4/8/2003. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 26919/03(D) DATED 22/8/03 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P5 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/10/2003. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.28872 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Certain properties belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the Periyar Valley Irrigation Project in the year 1950 along with other properties. All the properties so acquired were not required for the project and part of which is kept unused now. It so happens that the land acquired from the petitioner is part of those unused properties. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the respondents to assign that the land to the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the state in which it is inter alia contended that although the land is now remaining unused, the same may be needed for future expansion. It is further contended that in any event acquired properties cannot be returned to the original owner, even if the same is remaining unused. Going by the Supreme Court decision on the subject, such unutilized acquired land can only be sold in public auction is the contention. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. There is no law which enables the petitioner to get back W.P(C)No.28872 of 2004 - 2 - the properties acquired from him even if the same is remaining unutilized. It is not necessary that every inch of the acquired land should be utilized by the Government for the purpose for which it is acquired. Acquisition is based only on the estimated requirements. Even if there is unutilized land the same cannot be returned to the original owner. In fact it has been held so by the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala and Others v. M.Bhaskaran Pillai and another [(1997) 5 SCC 432.] In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs