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. 9847 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAMESH KUMAR, AGED 45, S/O.VENKATACHALAM T.C.9/1782, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, PULLAIKONAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O BY ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) 9847/2008 2 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) ADDITIONAL LAND UNIT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. M.HASSAN, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, T.C.9/2177, KANISOM BUILDING, MADRASA LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010. ADDL.8. TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 8TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 24.3.2008) R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SC FOR TRIDA R1 TO R6 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.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.9847 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st March, 2008. J U D G M E N T A tenant of a shop room is challenging the action of the Land Acquisition authority to demolish a shop room, in which he is conducting the business. A portion of the shop room along with the land was acquired for widening the road. According to the petitioner, there is no need to demolish the entire building. In view of the decision of the Full Bench reported in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 6 (FB), the Land Acquisition Officer has to decide whether the building acquired is to be demolished or not. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that in this case though a portion of the building alone was sought to be acquired, as the Landlord exercised the option under Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the whole structure was acquired. It is submitted that land wherein the remaining portion of the building situate is not acquired, and, as such, the Government gets title over the building alone. In this case, the award was passed prior to the decision of the Full Bench in Saramma Itticheriya's case, supra. W.P.(C) No.9847/2008 2 Since the land is not acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer cannot keep the structure which is situated on a land which belongs to another person. Further, the petitioner who is a tenant has got no locus standi to challenge the option exercised by the Landlord. So, I have no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is running a shop room, he is given time up to 3 p.m. on 5.4.2008 to vacate the premises and hand over the key to the Land Acquisition Officer. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.