IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6387 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABOOBACKER.K.K., S/O.LATE KUNJUMUHAMMED, KANAMPURAM HOUSE, VATTAKKATTUPADY, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.ALI SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KAKKANADU. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LA (NH-II), ALUVA. BY SR. G.P. SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6387 of 2008 I ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that 47 sq. Metres of land belonging to him is taken possession by the respondents without resorting to any land acquisition proceedings. According to the petitioner 40 sq. metres of land comprised in Sy.No.28/28 and 7 sq. metres of land comprised in Sy. No.27/8. In fact he is paying land tax for that area. 2. Second respondent has filed a statement contending that the above 47 sq. metres of land was not included in the draft declaration approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram for the reason that that particular land is lying as a way (Nalithuvazhi). It is also contended that the land in question would have been handed over to the PWD authorities formerly for the expansion of the road in the acute curve. It is further contended that the petitioner had no physical possession over the land under dispute and petitioner himself had constructed a compound wall leaving that portion. It is submitted that so no award was passed in respect of that land. 3. In R.L.Jain v. DDA ((2004) 4 SCC 79) the Apex Court has held as follows: “In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes WP(C) No.6387/2008 2 possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the landowner. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings......” 4. In this case in Ext.P1, a letter addressed to the Land Revenue Commissioner the petitioner had stated that PWD authorities met him and made him believe that Government is going to take steps to acquire the 47 sq. metres of land for straightening a curve and accepting reasonable compensation he constructed the boundary wall leaving 47 sq. metres of land and at that time he had not insisted for any compensation. Those are matters which can be properly agitated before a Civil Court. So, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach a Civil Court for getting value of the disputed land, this Writ Petition is closed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks